>.rf jr.    .'  •,iiliV4J^JlJ*<W^i''4''V;v>i/'',I-. 


. 

"%  ■  •  ■.•••m  '^y.^/^Msi%'- 

mf'^^^^JiS^ '8^  '^  ^ 

as 

^^^^mW-W^^ 

;v...v,v-:V.->--..,->..----.-.-.^.-.-.-..     ■■'/'■■■:•''■" 

-.-...  It.  .i^^B 

•"■■'•-■••y;^;--" 

tir^^Ftliur  Jones 


^1  1  ^    x-w^l 


7v 


1 1 


r\ 


// 


(y-'^'y 


\ 


tij^i 


/ 


y 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 

GIFT  OF 

Claude  E.    Jones 


MY  DEAR  WELLS 


BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR 


Patriotism  and  Popular  Education 

With  some  Thoughts  upon  English  work 
and  English  play,  our  evening  amusements, 
Shakespeare  and  the  condition  of  our 
theatres,  slang,  children  on  the  stage,  the 
training  of  actors,  English  politics,  before 
the  War,  national  training  for  national  de- 
fence, war  and  design  in  nature,  the 
League  of  Nations,  the  future  world  policy 
of  America,  capital  and  labour,  religion, 
reconstruction,  the  great  commandments, 
social  prophets  and  social  prophecy,  com- 
petition and  co-operation,  the  biologist  and 
the  social  reformer,  hand  labour  and  brain 
labour,  school  teachers  and  ragpickers, 
internationalism,  and  many  other  interest- 
ing matters. 

The  whole  discourse  being  in  the  form  of 
a  letter  addressed  to 

The  Right  Hon.  H.  A.  L.  Fisher 
President  of  the  British  Board  of  Education 


E.  P.  DUTTON  e5f  COMPANY 


-N 


<- 


'£)  lAje  Pub.  Co.    Reproduced  by  permission. 

H.  G.  Wells  (to  siarvmg  Russian  novelist):  Your  condition  is  deplorable, 
but  at  least  you  have  the  satisfaction  of  knowing  that  you  have  abolished 
private  property. 


MY  DEAR  WELLS 

BEING  A  SERIES  OF  LETTERS  ADDRESSED  BY 
HENRY  ARTHUR  JONES 

TO  MR.  H.   G.  WELLS 

UPON    BOLSHEVISM,   COLLECTIVISM, 
INTERNATIONALISM,    AND  THE 
DISTRIBUTION   OF  WEALTH 


NEW  YORK 

E.  P.  DUTTON  ^  COMPANY 
681  FIFTH  AVENUE 


Copyright,  1921, 
BY  E.  P.  DUTTON  &  COMPANY 


All  Rights  Reserved 


Printed  in  th©  United  States  of  America 


^7/ 


PREFACE. 

My  main  object  in  writing  this  book  has  been  to 
examine  the  soundness  of  the  arguments  which  a 
popular  writer  uses  in  urging  us  to  break  up  the 
present  social  order,  and  incidentally  and  conse- 
quentially to  break  up  the  British  Empire.  I  have 
set  myself  to  test  the  quality  of  his  thinking,  the 
texture  of  his  reasoning,  to  question  the  value  of 
his  judgment.  Before  proceeding  to  make  such 
fundamental  changes  in  our  social  system  as  must 
immeasurably  involve  the  destinies  of  hundreds  of 
millions  of  mankind,  before  even  considering  the 
advisability  of  making  these  changes,  it  may  save 
us  much  trouble  if  we  first  ask  for  credentials  from 
those  who  advocate  them.  What  are  their  quali- 
fications for  advising  us  on  these  supreme  matters? 

In  a  London  journal  of  the  widest  circulation, 
an  enthusiastic  admirer  of  Mr.  Wells  recently 
claimed  that  he  possessed  an  almost  superhuman 
sagacity  and  foresight  in  dealing  with  the  social  and 
political  problems  of  our  time.  All  through  the  war 
and  since,  Mr.  Wells  has  diagnosed  the  world  situa- 
tion almost  month  by  month,  has  laid  out  vast  Inter- 
national schemes,  has  counselled  various  policies  to 


5v.  .>.j1'S 


vi  Preface 

the  world's  statesmen  and  rulers,  has  issued  mani- 
festoes and  forecasts  innumerable.  Looking  round 
upon  the  world  today,  how  do  its  salient  facts 
and  conditions  accord  with  the  successive  estimates 
and  forecasts  which  Mr.  Wells  has  made?  How 
many  of  his  forecasts  have  been  fulfilled?  His  en- 
thusiastic admirer  acclaimed  Mr.  Wells  as  "the 
man  who  saw  things  coming."  How  many  of  the 
things  that  Mr.  Wells  "saw  coming"  have  actually 
come  to  pass?  How  many  of  the  tremendous  things 
that  have  actually  come  to  pass,  did  Mr.  Wells  "see 
coming"? 

Before  pulling  the  British  Empire  to  pieces,  we 
may  surely  take  the  precaution  to  ask  what  authority 
of  careful  thought  and  stability  of  informed  judge- 
ment, are  possessed  by  those  who  are  seeking  to 
draw  us  into  these  vast  and  irrevocable  commit- 
ments. We  have  among  us  a  group  of  "thinkers" 
and  writers  whom  I  call  "The  Haters  of  England." 
They  always  "think"  against  their  own  country.  If 
there  is  sedition  and  revolt  in  any  part  of  the  Em- 
pire, they  stir  it  up.  If  there  is  trouble  and  unrest 
at  home,  they  foment  it.  Most  of  them  are  active 
fervent  Internationalists  with  respect  to  their  own 
country,  but  with  respect  to  any  country  that  is 
embroiled  with  England,  they  are  active  fervent 
Patriots.  During  the  war  they  were  worth  many 
army  corps  to  Germany.  Now  that  the  war  has 
left  us  a  legacy  of  new  insecurities  and  perils,  now 


Preface  vii 

that  it  Is  a  first  necessity  that  our  nation  should 
gather  itself  in  one  great  unity  of  aim  and  effort 
to  ward  off  disaster,  these  haters  of  England  are 
busy  spreading  disaffection  and  disunion  both  in  our 
internal  and  In  our  foreign  affairs. 

Mr.  Wells  Is  one  of  the  most  popular  and  Influen- 
tials  of  these  "thinkers"  and  writers  who  "think" 
and  write  against  England.  It  has  been  my  chief 
endeavour  In  the  following  pages,  to  test  the  quality 
of  his  "thinking",  Its  fibre  and  cogency,  to  demand 
his  credentials  that  they  may  be  vizeed  by  the  final 
court  of  appeal. 

The  series  of  papers  entitled  "Russia  in  the 
Shadows"  which  Mr.  Wells  has  recently  published, 
afforded  me  the  chance  to  examine  his  views  upon 
Bolshevism,  and  to  dissect  the  arguments  by  which 
he  accorded  to  it  a  general  and  sympathetic  support. 
My  replies  to  those  papers,  which  originally  ap- 
peared in  the  "London  Evening  Standard"  and  the 
"New  York  Sunday  Times,"  are  here  reprinted,  and 
form  the  substance  of  the  first  eight  letters  In  this 
volume.  The  situation  in  Russia  has  changed  con- 
siderably In  the  last  few  months,  but  this  does  not 
in  the  least  affect  the  quality  of  Mr.  Wells's  think- 
ing and  arguments,  nor  of  my  criticism  of  them. 

The  enthusiastic  admirer  of  Mr.  Wells,  In  the 
same  article  that  I  have  quoted,  made  the  further 
claim  on  his  behalf — "Wells  today  is  thinking  for 
half  Europe." 


vlii  Preface 

It  is  dally  becoming  more  painfully  evident  that 
the  great  masses  of  the  people  in  all  countries  are 
unable,  or  are  too  much  occupied,  to  think  for  them- 
selves upon  any  question  that  requires  them  to  pur- 
sue a  train  of  abstract  and  exact  reasoning.  They 
are  only  too  glad  to  escape  from  so  prolonged  and 
painful  an  effort,  and  to  get  their  thinking  done  for 
them  by  professional  thinkers  for  other  people. 
When  this  vicarious  thinking  is  analysed,  much  of 
it  is  found  to  be  a  flatulent  compound  of  vasty  vague 
phrases  and  enticing  catch-words.  These  are  put 
into  general  circulation  and  passed  from  mouth  to 
mouth,  flattering  the  self-esteem  of  the  users  by 
giving  them  the  illusion  that  they  are  solving  difficult 
social  and  political  problems.  How  many  of  those 
who  used  the  phrase  "making  the  world  safe  for 
democracy"  asked  themselves  what  it  meant?  By 
dint  of  constantly  repeating  it,  men  grew  to  believe 
that  they  were  putting  an  end  to  war. 

My  secondary  and  ancillary  object  in  writing  this 
book  has  been  to  test  the  value  and  soundness  of 
this  vicarious  thinking  that  is  being  turned  out  in 
such  wholesale  quantities  by  its  accredited  purveyors 
for  its  millions  of  consumers.  In  the  "London  Sun- 
day Express"  of  December  20,  1920,  Mr.  Wells 
replied  to  Mr.  Winston  Churchill  in  a  paper  called 
"The  Anti-Bolshevik  Mind."  In  itself  Mr.  Wells's 
paper  is  of  no  great  account,  and  the  circumstances 
of  its  publication  may  be  dismissed.     But  in  "The 


Preface  ix 

Antl-Bolshevik  Mind"  Mr.  Wells  offered,  what 
seemed  to  me,  a  characteristic  and  extensive  illus- 
tration of  loose  and  confused  "thinking"-  for  other 
people.  In  this  respect  it  has  a  permanent  illuminat- 
ing interest  for  people  who  think  for  themselves. 
For  this  reason,  and  from  this  point  of  view,  I  have 
minutely  dissected  "The  Anti-Bolshevik  Mind"  from 
beginning  to  end,  almost  sentence  by  sentence. 

Further,  in  the  course  of  that  paper,  Mr.  Wells 
advanced  and  exploited  his  theories  to  such  a 
length  that  he  gave  me  the  chance  of  examining  each 
of  his  cardinal  tenets  and  doctrines  upon  its  merits. 
Concurrently  then,  and  without  digressing  from  the 
main  and  secondary  objects  which  I  had  In  view,  I 
have  in  the  following  pages  Inquired  into  the  possi- 
bilities of  Collectivism  and  Internationalism  as 
workable  forms  of  government,  and  also  into  the 
eternally  perplexing  problem  of  the  distribution  of 
Wealth.  In  the  ninth  letter  onwards,  I  have  dis- 
puted with  Mr.  Wells  on  all  these  closely  interknit 
questions. 

I  hope  my  readers  will  find  throughout  these 
letters  an  underchain  of  carefully  sustained  argu- 
ment, and  thereupon  I  finally  rest  my  case.  But  in 
forming  their  opinions  upon  all  these  supreme  mat- 
ters, the  great  majority  of  men  are  guided,  not  so 
much  by  argument,  however  clear  and  irrefragable, 
as  by  their  sympathies,  emotions,  and  prejudices,  and 
chiefly  by  their   immediate   individual   or  class   in- 


X  Preface 

terests.  They  believe  not  what  facts  tell  them,  but 
what  they  wish  to  believe. 

Mr.  Wells's  theories  appear  to  me  to  be  not  only 
inconsistent,  ill  considered,  and  unworkable,  but 
apart  from  the  tragic  mischief  and  misery  they  may 
cause,  they  present  themselves  to  me  as  a  bundle  of 
crazy  but  delightfully  amusing  absurdities.  In 
many  passages  throughout  these  letters,  I  have 
adopted  a  tone  and  method  of  controversy  which  is 
perhaps  not  to  be  commended  for  general  imitation, 
but  which  may  prove  to  be  the  most  effectual  for 
achieving  the  objects  I  have  in  view.  Those  objects 
are  of  such  magnitude  and  importance  that  I  should 
not  hesitate  to  use  any  form  of  controversy  which 
might  best  serve  to  call  attention  to  them,  and  best 
serve  to  arrest  and  persuade  the  nine  out  of  ten 
of  us  who  are  impatient  of  solemn  formal  argument. 
If  any  reader  thinks  that  I  have  occasionally  been 
a  little  careless  of  the  courtesies  of  controversy,  I 
beg  him  to  remember  that  ridicule  Is  sometimes  the 
most  penetrating  and  most  conclusive  form  of  ar- 
gument. 

For  the  reasons  I  have  given,  I  hope  these  letters 
hiay  be  found  to  have  something  more  than  the 
ephemeral  Interest  which  attaches  to  a  sterile  per- 
sonal controversy  on  some  passing  question  of  the 
day,  whose  flavour  the  next  morning  is  as  stale  as 
the  dead  end  of  a  half-smoked  cigar. 

If  we  are  to  overturn  the  present  social  order, 


Preface  xi 

and  break  up  the  British  Empire,  let  us  first  be  sure 
of  our  grounds,  and  let  those  who  can  think  for 
themselves,  search  into  the  credentials  of  those  who 
are  thinking  for  other  people,  and  who  are  popularly 
accepted  as  qualified  advisers  on  matters  of  life  or 
death  to  our  nation  and  to  all  civilised  mankind. 

Henry  Arthur  Jones. 

March  30,  1921. 

New  York  City. 


PUBLISHERS'  NOTE 

MY  DEAR  WELLS  was  practically  ready  for  publica- 
tion three  months  ago  or  more.  The  Publishers  hesitated 
to  put  the  book  before  the  public,  however,  owing  to 
objections  raised  by  Mr.  H.  G.  Wells  to  the  accuracy  of 
some  of  its  supposed  statements. 

A  copy  of  the  book  was  at  once  forwarded  to  Mr.  Wells 
by  the  Publishers  for  his  examination,  with  an  offer  to 
withhold  the  volume  from  publication  if  Mr.  Wells  would 
point  out  any  matter  therein  which  was  either  untrue  or 
libelous  or  w^hich  offended  in  any  way  against  good  taste. 

Having  had  from  Mr.  Wells  no  answer  to  or  acknowl- 
edgment of  their  olifer,  they  feel  that  there  is  now  no 
longer  any  reason  for  postponing  publication  of  this  ex- 
ceedingly important  critical  examination  of  Mr.  Wells' 
theories.  ^ 

E.  P.  DUTTON  &  COMPANY 
New  York 

October  31st,  1921. 


CONTENTS 

LETTER  I.  PAGE 

Mr.  Wells  Will  Take  a  Trip  to  Russia i 

LETTER  n. 
Mr.  Wells  Packs  Up  and  Starts t    .        6 

LETTER  III. 
Mr.  Wells  Finds  Order  in  Petrograd lo 

LETTER  IV. 
Strange  Things  Get  into  Mr.  Wells's  Head 19 

LETTER  V. 
Mr.  Wells  Invents  a  New  Kind  of  Honesty 28 

LETTER  VI. 
Mr.  Wells  Gets  Further  Entangled 42 

LETTER  VII. 
Mr.  Wells,  the  Sailorman,  and  the  Stolen  Teapot  ...      56 

LETTER  VIII. 
Mr.  Wells  Becomes  Even  More  Preposterous 73 

LETTER  IX. 
The  Fabian  Beanfeast 95 

LETTER  X. 
The  Wicked  Mr.  Winston  Churchill iiz 

LETTER  XI. 
The  Foghorn  Tunes  Up 129 

xiii 


xiv  Contents 

LETTER  Xn.  PAGE 

The  Flapper  Flaps  and  the  Foghorn  Hovvls 149 

LETTER  XIIL 
The  Tortoise  and  the  Elephant 166 

LETTER  XIV. 
Fallacies  Galore 180 

r""^^  LETTER  XV. 

\       The  Interceptors  of  Wealth 194 

LETTER  XVI. 
Arguing  with  a  Turnip 221 

LETTER  XVII. 
Gathering  up  the  Fragments 242 

LETTER  XVIII. 
The  Wells  League 251 

LETTER  XIX. 
A  Challenge 259 


AUTHOR'S  NOTE 

These  letters  were  written  during  the  au- 
tumn and  winter  of  1920-192 1. 

The  earlier  ones  appeared  in  the  London 
Evening  Standard  and  the  New  York  Sun- 
day Times.  The  author  gratefully  acknowl- 
edges his  indebtedness  to  the  editors  of  these 
journals  for  their  permission  to  publish  them 
in  this  volume. 

New  York,  N.  Y. 
April  4,  igzi^ 


MY  DEAR  WELLS 


"  'E  dunnow  where  'e  are." 

Popular  English  Music-hall  Song 

"I'll  tickle  your  catastrophe." 

Falstaff,  Henry  IF,  Part  II 


MY  DEAR  WELLS 

LETTER  ONE. 

MR.  WELLS  WILL  TAKE  A  TRIP  TO 

RUSSIA. 

My  Dear  Wells, — 

In  a  recent  article  in  a  morning  journal,  which,  I 
am  sure,  must  have  caused  you  that  intense  annoy- 
ance which  we  all  feel  when  we  find  ourselves  inju- 
diciously praised  in  the  newspapers — in  that  article 
the  inspired  writer,  after  an  ascription  to  you  of  a 
sovereign  comprehension  of  human  affairs,  and  a 
superhuman  sagacity  in  dealing  with  them,  went  on 
to  declare  that  "Wells  to-day  is  thinking  for  half 
Europe." 

Mr.  Archibald  Spofforth,  who  was  reading  the 
article  aloud  to  me,  put  it  down  at  this  point  and 
very  ungraciously  muttered,  "Now  we  know  why 
Europe  is  in  such  a  mess." 

I  am  afraid  that  Spofforth  is  incurably  prejudiced 

against  you.     I  told  him  bluntly  that  he  was  guilty 

of  over-statement.     I  would  not  allow  that  you  are 

entirely  responsible  for  the  disorders  and  delusions 

I 


2  My  Dear  Wells 

of  thought  that  are  everywhere  gnawing  at  the 
foundations  of  ordered  government,  and  driving  the 
peoples  towards  civil  war  and  anarchy. 

I  was,  however,  obliged  to  admit  that  your  ad- 
vocacy of  Bolshevism  as  the  way  of  salvation  for 
mankind,  your  laudation  of  its  leaders  as  farseeing 
statesmen,  "shining  clear,"  "profoundly  wise,"  im- 
measurably more  competent  to  guide  the  destinies  of 
a  nation  than  such  "pretentious  bluffers"  as  Mr. 
Balfour  and  Lord  Robert  Cecil — I  was  obliged  to 
admit  to  Spofforth  that  if  you  are  indeed  thinking 
for  that  very  large  number  of  people  in  Europe  who 
are  unable  to  think  for  themselves,  you  are  likely 
to  lead  them  to  great  disaster. 

And  now  you  are  going  to  Russia  to  find  out  the 
facts  for  yourself.     Is  that  necessary? 

We  have  abundant  Information  about  the  state  of 
that  country.  A  great  cloud  of  faithful  witnesses 
have  brought  us  full  and  unimpeachable  evidence. 
Who  in  England  except  yourself  is  unacquainted  with 
Russian  conditions?  Who  except  yourself  has  not 
too  full  and  too  dreadful  a  knowledge  of  the  terror 
that  reigns  there;  all  the  securities  and  sanctities  of 
civilised  life  abolished;  all  the  spiritual  and  all  the 
material  possessions  of  the  people  seized  and  es- 
cheated, and  scattered  In  the  equality  of  the  dust; 
sweated  labour,  gagged  and  fettered  against  all  com- 
plaints and  strikes,  driven  to  its  daily  twelve-hour 
treadmill;  a  ruthless  militarism,  more  brutal  than 


Will  Take  a  Trip  to  Russia         3 

the  German,  hounding  its  ragged,  famished  hordes 
to  destroy  Western  civilisation;  a  junta  of  des- 
peradoes coining  the  blood  of  wretched  peasants 
into  gold  to  send  to  England  to  blind  and  drug  our 
workmen,  and  to  raise  them  into  insurrection  against 
their  own  means  of  livelihood;  the  very  shadow 
and  memory  of  Liberty  banished  from  the  land — 
since  this  old  earth  spun  on  its  axis,  has  ever  such 
a  cry  and  tale  of  horror  gone  up  to  heaven,  or  has 
heaven  looked  down  upon  such  a  bloody,  sickening 
spectacle  of  man's  inhumanity  to  man? 

These  are  the  facts  about  Russia,  my  dear  Wells. 
And  you  will  go  there  and  ascertain  them  for  your- 
self. 

You  have  compared  our  own  rulers  with  the  lead- 
ers of  Bolshevism.  You  have  found  our  English 
statesmen  to  be  "ignorant  and  limited  men" — 
"crudely  ignorant  of  the  world  of  modern  ideas." 

The  world  of  modern  ideas  I 

In  Russia  you  will  find  your  world  of  modern 
ideas  in  full  working  operation.  When  you  come 
back  I  would  like  to  have  a  little  talk  with  you  about 
your  world  of  modern  ideas. 

It  is  not  by  your  modern  ideas  that  the  Russian 
people  will  be  dragged  out  of  their  putrid  cesspool 
of  famine,  pestilence  and  anarchy.  It  is  only  by  the 
observance  of  those  great  unchanging  rules  of  life 
and  conduct,  those  sovereign  laws  of  communal  and 
national  well-being,  eternally  fixed,  and  as  old  as  the 


4  My  Dear  Wells 

world  itself,  whereby  through  all  time  past  nations 
have  established  themselves  in  peace  and  prosperity 
and  happiness — it  is  only  by  obedience  to  these  un- 
changing, primal  laws  that  Russia  will  be  rescued 
from  her  long  agony,  and  that  England  will  be  ar- 
rested in  her  progress  towards  social  rebellion  and 
civil  war. 

You  have  been  so  much  occupied  with  your  mod- 
ern ideas,  my  dear  Wells,  that  I  fear  you  have  for- 
gotten the  existence  of  these  great  primal  laws.  Yet 
they  shine  aloft  like  stars.  When  you  come  back 
from  Russia  I  should  like  to  bring  them  to  your 
attention,  and  to  challenge  you  to  deny  their  opera- 
tion. 

It  is  claimed  for  you  that  you  are  "thinking  for 
half  Europe."  Ah,  they  need  somebody  to  think 
for  them,  these  blind,  helpless,  tortured  masses  1 

But  I  do  most  frankly  question  your  competence 
to  think  for  those  who  are  unable  to  think  for  them- 
selves. In  my  "Patriotism  and  Popular  Education" 
I  examined  in  detail  your  scheme  for  the  Interna- 
tional Government  of  Africa.  You  will  remember 
that  you  regenerated  the  whole  continent  in  five 
minutes  by  giving  it  an  International  Constitution  on 
paper.    It  was  all  so  easy — on  paper. 

By  some  such  means  I  suppose  you  will  regenerate 
Russia.    You  will  find  it  equally  easy — on  paper. 

Well,  go  to  Russia. 

Yet  I  could  wish  that  you  had  chosen  England  for 


Will  Take  a  Trip  to  Russia  5 

your  spiritual  home  rather  than  Russia.  What  Is 
it  that  drives  you  and  so  many  Englishmen  to  hate 
this  dear,  kind,  blundering,  stupid  Mother  of  ours? 

You  have  declared  your  preference  for  Russia 
and  Bolshevism.  I  once  knew  a  man  who  had  a 
good  cellar  of  rich  vintage  wmes  In  his  own  house. 
Yet,  instead  of  drawing  upon  It,  he  would  go  tippling 
at  dirty  little  public-houses.  I  knew  another  man 
who  had  a  sweet,  pretty,  faithful  little  wife,  yet.  In- 
stead of  staying  at  home  with  her,  he  would  go  after 
draggled  creatures  In  the  streets. 

Well,  go  to  Russia.  Let  us  have  some  further 
speech  when  you  come  back. 

Your  faithful,  and  I  hope  not  too  candid,  friend, 

Henry  Arthur  Jones. 

P.  S. — If  I  were  you,  I  wouldn't  let  your  friends 
credit  you  with  too  much  capacity  for  thinking  for 
other  people.  Spofforth,  who  Is  always  at  my  elbow 
with  mal-a^propos  suggestions,  has  just  remarked 
that  if  you  are  thinking  for  half  Europe,  It  doesn't 
leave  you  much  time  to  think  for  yourself. 

1 6th  September,  1920. 

Mr.  Wells  replied  to  the  above  letter,  and  some 
further  correspondence  passed,  the  general  tenor 
of  which  may  be  gathered  from  Letter  2. 


LETTER  TWO. 

MR.  WELLS  PACKS  UP  AND  STARTS. 

My  Dear  Wells, — 

I  accept  such  terms  as  "liar,"  "excited  imbecile," 
"silly  ranter,"  "hasty,  ill-trained  mind,"  and  the 
other  elegancies  of  epithet  which  you  apply  to  me — 
I  accept  them  most  cordially,  most  gratefully,  as 
evidences  of  your  method  of  controversy.  I  will 
treasure  them  and  pay  them  the  same  respect  that  I 
pay  to  your  social  philosophy. 

To  come  to  the  facts.  You  accuse  me  of  twisting 
and  garbling  your  statements  because  I  quoted  you 
as  saying  that  the  Bolshevist  leaders  are  "shining 
clear"  and  "profoundly  wise."  You  don't  deny 
that  you  did  call  them  "shining  clear;"  but  you 
explained  that  this  applied  only  to  the  one  mat- 
ter of  making  peace  with  the  Hohenzollerns. 
It  is  strange  that  you  should  applaud  them  in 
this  matter,  when  at  the  most  critical  period  of 
the  war  you  were  urging  us  to  make  peace  with  un- 
defeated Germany  under  the  Hohenzollerns.  You 
will  remember  I  had  to  curb  your  zeal  when  you  ad- 
vised England  to  throw  herself  on  the  neck  of  her 
undefeated  enemy. 

6 


Mr.  Wells  Packs  Up  and  Starts       7 

So  you  say  that  the  Bolshevist  leaders  were  "shin- 
ing clear"  on  this  one  point  only.  In  that  matter,  if 
indeed  they  were  shining  clear,  I  gladly  allow  that 
they  were  far  more  "shining  clear"  than  yourself. 

You  do  not  seem  to  qualify  your  praise  of  them 
as  "profoundly  wise,"  or  to  limit  your  admiration 
for  them  in  that  respect.  You  impute  dishonesty  to 
me  because  I  took  the  general  sense  and  tenor  of 
your  article,  and  did  not,  in  a  limited  space,  deal 
minutely  with  every  particular.  I  am  ready  to  deal 
minutely  with  every  one  of  these  minor  points,  these 
qualifications  of  your  plain  statements — if  the  editor 
of  the  "Evening  Standard"  thinks  it  worth  while  to 
give  me  the  space  to  vex  the  public  any  further  with 
them. 

Meantime  I  repeat  with  the  utmost  emphasis  that 
I  can  employ,  that  your  entire  article  is  one  continued 
laudation  of  the  Bolshevist  leaders,  and  their  far- 
seeing  statesmanship,  to  the  depreciation  of  our  Eng- 
lish statesmen.  Will  you  face  that  simple  issue?  It 
IS  the  only  main  issue  that  I  raised  in  my  letter.  I 
now  put  it  again  to  you  in  the  plainest  way. 

Your  article  in  the  "Daily  Mail"  of  January  15, 
19 1 8,  is  easily  accessible.  You  do  not  abjure  it. 
You  defend  and  even  reinforce  it.  I  invite  and 
request  the  fullest  comparison  of  that  article  with  my 
letter  to  you  in  the  "Evening  Standard"  of  Septem- 
ber 16,  1920. 

If  by  dint  of  argument,  persuasion,  search,  adver- 


8  My  Dear  Wells 

tiscment,  or  by  any  other  means  you  can  find  one 
single  man  in  this  country  who,  having  read  your 
article  and  my  comment  upon  it,  will  come  forward 
and  say  that,  on  the  great  main  issue  that  I  have 
raised,  I  have  misrepresented  you,  or  unfairly  stated 
your  opinion  of  the  Bolshevist  leaders — if  you  can 
find  such  a  man  and  bring  him  forward,  why,  in  that 
case,  my  dear  Wells,  I  will  pay  him  the  same  atten- 
tion that  I  am  paying  to  you.  I  will  deal  with  him 
candidly,  as  I  am  dealing  with  you — and  even  more 
exhaustively. 

After  all  your  depreciation  of  English  statesmen 
and  diplomatists  as  "pretentious  bluffers"  ("Daily 
Mail,"  January  30,  191 8),  "crudely  ignorant  per- 
sons" guilty  of  vast  general  incompetence  in  man- 
aging our  national  affairs,  it  seems  that  your  chief 
indictment  against  them,  the  head  and  front  of  their 
offending,  is  that  our  Ambassador  in  St.  Petersburg 
did  not  know  Russian.  If  you  will  inquire  I  think, 
that  you  will  find  that,  with  one  or  two  rare  excep- 
tions, no  foreign  Ambassador  in  St.  Petersburg  has 
known  Russian.  It  is  not  a  great  matter,  except  in 
your  estimation.  Disraeli  did  not  know  French. 
That  did  not  prevent  him  being  a  great  diplomatist. 
Will  you  kindly  look  up  the  point  about  foreign 
Ambassadors  knowing  Russian?  As  it  is  your  main 
charge  against  English  statesmanship,  you  may  as 
well  take  care  to  stand  upon  firm  ground. 

Another  point.     You  claimed  that  the  Bolshevist 


Mr.  Wells  Packs  Up  and  Starts       9 

leaders  were  "trying  to  end  aggressive  militarism  In 
the  world  forever."  They  believe  that  they  can  do 
this  by  mental  work,  by  propaganda — that  Is,  by 
words.  Isn't  that  the  fundamental  fallacy  of  Inter- 
nationalists and  Pacifists?  They  think  they  can  gov- 
ern and  regenerate  the  world  by  a  committee,  by 
International  paper  constitutions,  such  as  the  one 
you  devised  for  the  government  and  regeneration  of 
the  continent  of  Africa.     It  is  so  easy — on  paper. 

And  now,  my  dear  Wells,  I  must  not  detain  you 
any  further.  You  are  busy  packing  up  for  Russia. 
Let  us  have  some  further  speech  on  all  these  matters 
when  you  come  back. 

Your  sincere  well  wisher, 

Henry  Arthur  Jones. 

P.  S. — By  the  way,  you  ask  me  if  I  don't  think 
that  the  Bolshevists  are  "straight."  No,  I  don't, 
my  dear  Wells.  Do  you?  In  that  case  I  do  homage 
to  the  generous  simplicity  of  your  mind.  But  per- 
haps we  attach  different  meanings  to  the  word 
"straight." 

17th  September,  1920. 

To  this  letter  Mr.  Wells  made  the  strange  reply 
that  I  did  not  understand  the  use  of  inverted  com- 
mas, and  that  therefore  discussion  with  me  was 
impossible.  fVhen  Air.  Wells  is  pressed  home  in 
argument,  his  retort  is  apt  to  be  inscrutable  and 
incoherent.  H.  A.  J. 


LETTER  THREE. 

MR.  WELLS  FINDS  ORDER  IN  PETRO- 

GRAD. 

My  Dear  Wells, — 

So  you  are  back  in  England.  1  thought  It  possible 
that  you  might  be  offered  some  high  advisory  post 
in  Russia,  which  your  love  of  Bolshevist  Government 
would  constrain  you  to  accept.  For  in  that  country 
your  International  theories  are  being  translated  Into 
facts,  and  the  general  condition  of  affairs  seems  to 
call  for  constant  superintendence  from  yourself. 

You  have  returned  to  our  shores,  and  in  an  inter- 
view you  tell  us  that  you  have  had  a  very  Interesting 
time.  It  looks  likely  that  we  are  going  to  have  a 
very  interesting  time  In  England,  and  something  of 
the  same  sort  of  interesting  time  that  they  are  having 
in  Russia. 

I  notice  that  you  summarise  the  conditions  In 
Russia  in  four  words:  "Hunger,  want,  but  order." 
This  seems  to  imply  that  if  only  order  is  maintained 
the  hunger  and  the  want  are  matters  of  secondary 
Importance.  What  we  are  concerned  to  know  Is: 
"How  much  hunger?    How  much  want?"  and  above 

10 


Mr.  Wells  Finds  Order  in  Petrograd'    ii 

all:  "What  kind  of  order  prevails  in  Russia 
to-day?" 

We  have  evidence  heaped  mountain  high  that  the 
hunger  and  want  in  Russia  are  unimaginable  in  their 
horror  and  their  extent;  that  marasmus  and  pesti- 
lence are  sweepmg  the  land,  and  are  only  dwindling 
as  the  dwindling  population  offers  them  fewer  vic- 
tims. Tell  me,  what  is  the  population  of  Petrograd  * 
to-day  compared  with  its  population  before  the 
war?  What  will  it  be  when  its  doomed  inhabitants 
have  paid  their  further  toll  to  frost  and  starvation 
in  the  coming  winter?  Will  you  dismiss  these  ques- 
tions as  neghgible  and  impertinent  in  view  of  the 
dominating  fact  that  "order"  reigns  in  Petrograd? 

What  kind  of  order?  You  say:  "We  have  been 
rather  amused  to  read  of  disturbances  and  insur- 
rections." Who  are  the  "we"  who  were  "amused" 
to  read  of  disturbances  and  insurrections?  You  and 
Lenin?  Or  is  the  whole  population  of  Petrograd 
rocking  with  laughter  at  the  bare  idea  of  disturb- 
ances and  insurrections  in  their  well-ordered  and 
disciplined  city?  You  will  scarcely  say  that  dis- 
turbances and  insurrections  have  not  taken  place. 
Rather  serious  ones,  eh?  Not  only  in  Petrograd, 
but  all  over  the  land,  plunging  the  whole  population 
in  terror,  misery,  bloodshed,  and  ruin,  and  sacrific- 
ing countless    thousands    of    innocent   lives?      But 

•It  has  recently  been  estimated  that  the  present  population  of 
Petrograd  (March,  1921)  is  not  much  over  a  third  of  the  population 
ID  1914. 


12  My  Dear  Wells 

those  disturbances  and  insurrections  have  been  sub- 
dued. Now  that  order  reigns,  the  very  thought  of 
them  is  amusing.  .  .  .  O  vastly  amusing,  damnably 
amusing,  I  should  say. 

What  kind  of  order?  How  was  it  established? 
How  is  it  maintained? 

You  return  to  England  in  good  time.  Will  you 
tell  the  workers  of  England — those  workers,  many 
of  whom  were  two  years  ago  m  the  trenches,  ready 
to  die  for  you  and  for  me — will  you  tell  the  workers 
of  England  that  the  order  now  maintained  In  Petro- 
grad  is  the  kind  of  order  that  you  desire  them  to 
live  under?  An  enforced  twelve-hour  day,  on  wages 
on  starvation  level;  the  right  to  strike,  nay,  the 
right  to  murmur  or  complain  denied  them  under 
pain  of  death;  free  speech  more  cruelly  suppressed 
and  punished  than  under  the  worst  tyranny  the 
earth  has  known — will  you  tell  the  workers  of 
England  that  this  is  the  kind  of  order  you  wish  them 
to  establish  in  our  own  country? 

Be  sure  that  it  is  the  kind  of  order  which  inevitably 
follows  any  attempt  to  govern  a  country  upon  inter- 
national proletarian  principles.  Do  you  recommend 
it  to  us  at  the  present  moment? 

How  was  this  order  established  in  Russia?  By 
machine-guns  at  every  strategic  point;  by  shooting 
every  one  who  opposed;  by  wholesale  robbery, 
massacre,  and  imprisonment;  by  inflicting  transcend- 


Mr.  Wells  Finds  Order  in  Petrogradj-     13 

ent  agonies  and  privations  upon  the  whole  people; 
by  crimes  and  Infamies  and  cruelties  innumerable, 
indescribable,  beyond  all  picturing. 

Do  you  still  advise  the  workers  of  England  to 
establish  International  order  in  this  country  by  these 
methods?  For  by  no  other  methods  can  It  be  estab- 
lished.    Oh,  be  very  sure  of  that  1 

How  is  this  order  maintained?  By  the  more  and 
more  rigorous  employment  of  the  same  methods 
whereby  it  was  established.  Did  you  read  the  speech 
of  Comrade  Martoff  at  the  conference  of  German 
Socialists  a  few  days  ago?  He  dared  to  arraign 
this  order  established  in  Petrograd,  to  proclaim  It 
as  a  bloody,  pitiless  despotism,  the  devilish  gaoler 
and  destroyer  of  Russian  liberty  and  national  hope 
and  life. 

That  is  how  order  Is  maintained  in  Petrograd. 

Comrade  Martoff  has  had  a  much  longer  and 
closer  experience  than  yourself  of  this  order  that 
reigns  In  Petrograd.  He  has  lived  and  suffered 
under  it,  and  knows  It  through  and  through.  You 
were  In  Russia  something  just  over  a  fortnight,  I 
believe.  You  will  claim  that,  with  your  astonishing 
capacity  for  formulating  political  theories,  and  im- 
posing them  upon  mankind,  a  fortnight  is  ample 
time  for  you  to  get  a  grip  of  the  whole  situation, 
and  to  shape  a  nation's  destinies  accordingly. 

If  it  came  to  a  pinch,  and  I  knew  you  were  in  good 


14  My  Dear  Wells 

form,  I  would  back  you  to  bring  out  a  new  Consti- 
tution, or  a  new  religion,  for  any  country  or  conti- 
nent, in  less  than  a  week.  Don't  distrust  yourself. 
I  know  you  can  do  it.  Why,  a  year  or  two  ago  you 
whipped  out  a  brand  new  International  Constitu- 
tion for  the  whole  continent  of  Mid-Africa  in  a  fort- 
night. It  is  true  that  it  was  a  paper  Constitution, 
and  that  it  wouldn't  work  for  five  minutes.  Still, 
you  did  it.  It  is  true,  also,  that  your  International 
Constitution  for  Mid-Africa  illustrated  the  funda- 
mental and  eternal  fallacies  of  International  govern- 
ment and  was  in  itself  a  perfect  little  cameo  con- 
demnation of  Internationalism.  Do  you  wish  me 
to  re-examine  it  and  prove  this  statement? 

To  return  to  Comrade  Martoff  and  the  order  that 
reigns  in  Petrograd.  Comrade  Martoff,  seemingly 
a  good  Socialist  and  Internationalist  like  yourself, 
denounces  and  curses  the  order  that  reigns  in 
Petrograd.  He  finds  nothing  amusing  in  it.  But 
then  he  has  lived  under  it,  and  you  will  allow  that 
In  the  matter  of  lengthened  observation  and  expe- 
rience you  are  a  mere  week-end  tripper  compared 
with  Comrade  Martoff. 

You  had  a  very  interesting  time,  you  say,  not 
without  amusement.  Among  the  interesting  and 
amusing  things  you  saw,  did  you  acquaint  yourself 
with  the  conditions  of  childbirth  In  Russia  under 
the  present  order  that  reigns  there?  Did  you  hap- 
pen to  observe  a  dreadful  type  of  baby  that  Russian 


Mr.  Wells  Finds  Order  in  Petrograd     15 

mothers  are  bringing  into  the  world;  starved  In  the 
womb,  wizened,  atrophied? 

The  babies  are  perishing  by  thousands,  and  those 
that  miserably  survive  shall  bear  witness  all  their 
lives  to  the  effects  of  the  order  that  now  reigns  in 
Petrograd. 

That  order,  you  allow,  is  accompanied  by  hunger 
and  want.  You  will  scarcely  counsel  our  English 
workers  to  embrace  International  theories  for  the 
sake  of  the  hunger  and  want  that  they  bring  to  the 
nations  that  put  them  into  practice.  But  you  seem 
to  imply  that  the  hunger  and  want  must  be  endured 
for  the  sake  of  the  order  that  is  established  under 
International  government.  On  this  point  you  have 
not  yet  made  yourself  clear.  Indeed,  you  said:  "I 
have  seen  so  much  that  I  have  not  yet  digested  what 
I  have  seen."  Well,  digest  it  as  you  may,  human- 
ity has  not  stomach  for  it. 

However,  it  is  announced  that  in  a  few  days  you 
will  have  digested  what  you  saw  in  your  fortnight's 
trip  to  Russia,  and  you  are  going  to  give  us  "one 
of  the  most  thrilling  narratives  of  recent  years." 

Already  we  have  been  "thrilled" — and  re-thrilled, 
and  over-thrilled,  and  thrilled  again  by  what  has 
happened  in  Russia.  We  have  no  further  power  of 
response  to  "thrills."  What  we  are  anxious  to  hear 
is  whether  your  fortnight's  trip  to  Russia  leaves  you 
to  form  the  same  opinion  of  the  present  Govern- 
ment that  Comrade  Martoff  has  formed  with  his 


i6  My  Dear  Wells 

incomparably  greater  experience  and  opportunities 
of  pronouncing  a  judgement  upon  it.  Do  you  agree 
with  Comrade  Martoff,  or  do  you  not? 

At  this  grave  moment,  when  a  large  body  of 
English  workers  are  hesitating,  would  you  counsel 
them  to  pay  the  same  price  for  a  revolution  that  the 
workers  of  Russia  paid  for  it?  Would  you  counsel 
them  to  pay  a  tenth,  a  hundredth  part  of  that  price? 
Answer  me  that. 

For  believe  me,  my  dear  Wells,  some  such  price 
we  shall  have  to  pay  for  International  proletarian 
Government  if  we  have  it  in  England. 

As  I  have  clearly  shown — and  I  beg  you  to  ex- 
amine my  arguments  and  to  refute  them  if  you  can — 
there  is  but  one  question  before  every  English- 
man to-day — International  or  Patriotic  Government. 
Every  other  question,  social,  industrial,  financial, 
economic,  political,  falls  into  and  is  resolved  in  that 
one  question.  Till  that  primal,  dividing  question 
is  finally  decided  by  our  nation  we  shall  but  toss  and 
blindly  defeat  ourselves  in  ever-growing  unrest, 
social  disorder  and  social  disintegration. 

With  regard  to  this  one  supreme  question — In- 
ternational or  Patriotic  Government — and  keeping 
in  view  the  facts  that  you  have  learned  in  your 
fortnight's  trip  to  Russia,  where  it  is  in  full  working 
operation,  you  have  the  proverbial  choice  of  taking 
one  of  three  courses : — 

I.    You   can   frankly   declare   that   International 


Mr.  Wells  Finds  Order  in  Petrograd'    I7 

Proletarian  Government  is  a  hideous  failure.  Per- 
haps this  is  too  much  to  expect  from  you  at  present. 
You  will  wait  till  further  facts  and  disasters  more 
clearly  reveal  it  to  you. 

2.  You  can  dodge  the  plain  questions  I  have  put 
to  you,  hedge  a  little  bit,  or  a  great  deal,  according 
as  circumstances  or  your  convictions  may  mal^e  it 
prudent  or  advisable  for  your  reputation  as  a  po- 
litical thinker,  who  is  thinking  for  half  Europe. 

3.  You  can  triumphantly  proclaim  that  Interna- 
tional Proletarian  Government  is  a  success  in  Rus- 
sia, and  that  the  hunger  and  want  which  are  in- 
separable from  it  are  worth  enduring  for  the  sake 
of  attaining  the  beneficent  order  that  now  reigns  in 
Petrograd. 

Which  of  these  courses  will  you  take? 

When  you  left  for  Russia  we  were  engaged  in  a 
controversy  which  you  abruptly  closed  on  the  plea 
that  I  did  not  understand  the  use  of  inverted  com- 
mas, and  that  therefore  it  was  impossible  to  argue 
with  me.  I  am  quite  willing  to  submit  the  matter 
of  the  inverted  commas  to  any  impartial  judge  of 
inverted  commas.  But  I  was  under  the  impression 
that  we  were  arguing  about  those  great  first  prin- 
ciples of  civilised  government  upon  which  the  se- 
curity and  prosperity  of  all  nations  depend. 

I  am  anxious  to  resume  the  controversy  with  you 
on  these  more  important  matters.  Let  it  not  distress 
you  that  you  find  it  impossible  to  argue  with  me.     I 


i8  My  Dear  Wells 

will  continue  the  controversy  all  alone,  and  will 
furnish  the  necessary  arguments  for  us  both.  Au 
revoir. 

Henry  Arthur  Jones. 
26th  October,  1920. 


LETTER  FOUR. 

STRANGE  THINGS  GET  INTO  MR. 
WELLS'S  HEAD. 

My  Dear  Wells, — 

I  hope  that  it  will  cause  you  a  pleasurable  emotion 
to  know  that  the  coal  strike  has  delayed  my  de- 
parture from  England  for  a  few  days.  This  enables 
us  to  keep  in  touch  with  each  other,  while  I  examine 
your  opening  account  of  what  is  happening  in  Russia. 

I  have  never  known  a  man  so  determined  to  ex- 
pose the  fallacies  of  Internationalism  as  yourself. 
You  might  have  rested  content  with  your  masterly 
arraignment  of  International  government  in  that 
wonderful  paper  Constitution  you  drew  up  for  Mid- 
i\.frica,  so  full  of  an  ironic  significance — which  per- 
haps you  scarcely  perceived.  But  having  furnished 
us  with  an  admirable  theoretical  condemnation  of 
Internationalism,  you  proceed  to  make  a  trip  to 
Russia  in  order  to  show  us  what  Internationalism  is 
like  when  it  puts  its  theories  into  practice. 

Your  description  of  Russian  conditions,  sickening 
and  heart-breaking  as  it  is,  adds  nothing  to  what  we 
knew  of  them.  We  have  supped  full  of  these  hor- 
rors.    They  have  been  rehearsed  to  us  ad  nauseam 

19 


20  My  Dear  Wells 

by  scores  of  travellers  and  residents  who  have  had  a 
much  longer,  more  vivid,  more  poignant  experience 
of  these  dreadful  realities  than  yourself.  You  might 
have  stayed  at  home  and  verified  the  overwhelmng 
evidence  already  brought  to  us  from  Russia.  But 
you  would  go  there  and  see  these  things  for  yourself. 
Well,  you  have  seen  them,  and  you  confirm  our 
general  knowledge  of  the  hopeless  misery,  oppres- 
sion, famine,  disease,  and  despair  that  daily  tighten 
their  hold  upon  the  masses  of  the  Russian  people. 

We  are  all  in  substantial  agreement  about  the 
facts.  We  accept  your  summary  of  them  as  correct, 
so  far  as  it  goes.  No  eye  can  survey  the  boundless 
misery  and  horror  that  prevail  in  Russia.  No  pen 
can  describe  them.  Pity  has  drained  her  eyes,  and 
has  no  more  tears  to  shed.  Let  us  make  one  shud- 
dering guess  at  the  illimitable  dimensions  of  this 
abomination  of  the  earth,  and  then  take  your  de- 
scription of  it  as  a  faint  image  of  something  too  vast 
to  comprehend,  too  monstrous  to  imagine. 

With  this  impression  in  our  minds,  let  us  seek  for 
some  interpretation  of  the  ghastly  facts  that  you 
have  related  to  us.  How  has  the  present  condition 
of  Russia  been  brought  about? 

In  my  last  letter,  I  pointed  out  to  you  that  you 
had  a  splendid  chance  of  rehabilitating  your  reputa- 
tion as  a  political  thinker,  by  frankly  declaring  that 
International  Proletarian  Government  has  proved 
itself  to  be  a  hideous  failure.     I  cannot  but  think 


Strange  Things  Get  Into  His  Head  •  21 

you  would  have  been  wise  to  take  that  chance.  You 
would  have  had  all  the  facts  on  your  side.  I  own 
that  I  did  not  expect  you  would  fall  in  with  my  sug- 
gestion. You  have  written  so  much  to  prove  that 
International  Government  by  the  proletariat  is  the 
panacea  for  all  the  ills  that  afflict  this  planet,  that  it 
was  too  much  to  hope  you  would  change  your 
opinion,  merely  because  it  happened  to  be  opposed 
to  all  the  crying  and  salient  facts. 

Therefore  I  pointed  out  to  you  a  second  course. 
You  could  let  yourself  down  gently,  hedge  and  palter 
with  this  remorseless  question  that  threatens  to 
strangle  every  nation  that  cannot  solve  it  aright, 
and  that  will  allow  no  nation  to  have  peace  and 
security  until  it  is  solved.  You  have  not  definitely 
taken  that  second  course. 

I  further  pointed  out  to  you  that  you  had  a  third 
course — to  proclaim  boldly  that  International  Pro- 
letarian Government  had  answered  all  your  expecta- 
tions, fulfilled  all  your  prophecies,  and  that  the 
present  condition  of  Russia  is  a  triumphant  justifi- 
cation of  your  theories.  In  presence  of  the  universal 
misery,  bankruptcy,  disease,  and  starvation  that  you 
have  pictured  you  could  scarcely  take  this  third 
course.  But  in  your  recent  paper  you  go  as  near  to 
it  as  you  dare.  You  evidently  lean  towards  it,  and 
you  would  whole-heartedly  adopt  it  if  it  were  not 
for  the  thousand  damnable  facts  that  thunder  its 
refutation.     So  what  do  you  do?     You  admit  the 


22  My  Dear  Wells 

facts;  indeed,  you  dilate  and  enlarge  upon  them; 
then  you  try  to  explain  them  away  in  a  sense  that  is 
favourable  to  Bolshevist  government. 

Let  us  examine  your  explanation.  You  contend 
that  the  present  terrible  condition  of  Russia  is  not 
the  result  of  Bolshevist  rule,  but  of  "Capitalism," 
"European  Imperialism,"  and  an  "atrocious  block- 
ade." 

You  allow  that  Capitalism  built  the  great  cities 
of  Russia.  Under  Communism  their  population  has 
shrunk  to  about  half  its  former  numbers,  is  still 
diminishing,  and  is  living  in  progressive  misery  and 
starvation.  Further,  the  Communist  Government 
is  seeking  to  trade  with  England.  Now  that  it  has 
almost  destroyed  its  own  capital  it  is  begging 
capitalist  England  to  bring  it  capital  to  start  its  in- 
dustries again. 

With  regard  to  Imperialism,  which  I  am  not  here 
concerned  to  uphold,  tell  me  what  Imperial  State  has 
governed  its  helpless  people  with  such  ruthless 
tyranny  and  cruelty  as  the  present  rulers  of  Russia? 
Under  what  Imperial  State  has  there  been  anything 
approaching  such  famished  misery  and  universal 
impoverishment  as  you  have  lately  witnessed.  I  ask 
you  to  explain  by  your  theory,  how  it  is  that  now 
Imperialism  has  been  removed  these  terrible  condi- 
tions are  progressive;  that  they  increase  in  severity 
and  horror  in  the  degree  and  according  to  the 
length  of  time  that  the  Russian  people  are  removed 


Strange  Things  Get  Into  His  Head    23 

from  the  consequences  of  Imperial  Government, 
and  as  they  pass  under  the  rule  of  the  present  Gov- 
ernment and  live  under  the  operation  of  Communist 
laws?    Ponder  this  question,  my  dear  Wells. 

As  for  the  blockade,  without  pressing  the  argu- 
ment that  it  was  necessary  to  stay  the  tide  of  Bolshe- 
vism from  flooding  Europe,  it  can  scarcely  be  main- 
tained that  the  privations  and  hunger  caused  by  the 
blockade  have  been  at  all  comparable  with  the  priva- 
tions and  hunger  caused  by  the  Communist  law, 
which  forces  the  peasants  to  deliver  food  at  regulated 
prices,  and  thus,  by  taking  from  them  the  reward  of 
their  labour,  takes  from  them  also  all  incentive  to 
work  when  they  have  supplied  their  own  wants. 
There  is  the  master  key  of  the  situation  in  Russia, 
my  dear  Wells.  It  is  in  your  own  hands  if  you  will 
but  use  it. 

Now  let  us  inquire  upon  whose  shoulders  you  lay 
the  blame  for  this  frightful  ruin  of  civilisation. 
Whom  do  you  hold  responsible?  Obviously  you 
cannot  blame  the  present  rulers  of  Russia,  for  that 
would  condemn  all  your  cherished  theories.  Be- 
sides, you  have  lauded  them  as  "shining  clear,"  "pro- 
foundly wise" — a  model  for  our  own  statesmen. 
You  are  bound  in  honour  and  consistency  to  shield 
and  absolve  the  Bolshevist  leaders.  Whom,  then, 
will  you  choose  for  the  scapegoats?  You  look 
round,  and  you  fix  upon  the  "vindictive  French 
creditor"  and  the  "journalistic  British  oaf."    These, 


24  My  Dear  Wells 

you  contend,  are  far  more  responsible  than  any 
Communist. 

Ah,  those  "vindictive  French  creditors!"  They 
have  borne  the  brunt  of  the  war,  their  land  has  been 
pillaged  and  devastated,  and  now  they  are  so  vin- 
dictive as  to  wish  to  be  paid  their  just  debts!  God, 
what  an  outrage  upon  all  sound  Communistic  prin- 
ciples ! 

And  the  "journalistic  British  oaf?"  One  of 
these  journalistic  British  oafs  has  lately  died  from 
the  effects  of  imprisonment  in  a  Bolshevist  prison. 
Well,  at  any  rate,  he  has  got  his  deserts.  Serve  him 
right,  the  oaf,  for  causing  all  this  starvation  and 
misery  by  daring  to  tell  the  truth  about  it !  Let  us 
hope  you  will  now  castigate  the  other  journalistic 
oafs.     Spare  them  not! 

My  dear  Wells,  could  you  not  have  made  a 
better,  or,  at  least,  a  more  plausible  selection  of 
scapegoats?  I  know  you  were  in  a  dilemma.  You 
had  to  fix  the  responsibility  for  all  this  misery  upon 
somebody.  But  do  make  another  review  of  the 
whole  situation.  Bearing  in  mind  that  you  are 
"thinking  for  half  Europe,"  do  you  seriously  affirm 
that  the  present  terrible  condition  of  Russia  is  in  any 
measure  due  to  the  "vindictive  French  creditor" 
and  the  "journalistic  British  oaf?"  If,  after  due 
consideration,  you  say  that  such  is  your  honest  belief, 
I  entreat  you  to  distrust  your  mental  processes. 

Why,  my  dear  Wells,  do  you  not  perceive  that  this 


Strange  Things  Get  Into  His  Head    25 

filthy  bog  of  misery,  disease,  starvation,  and  de- 
spair, wherein  the  Russian  people  grope  and  perish, 
is  the  very  garden  paradise  of  your  International 
dreams,  the  land  flowing  with  milk  and  honey 
whereto  you  and  your  fellow  theorists  have  been 
leading  them,  and  cheering  them  on  to  possess  it? 
Now  you  have  reached  the  promised  land,  you  do 
not  recognise  it.  It  isn't  in  the  least  like  the  paradise 
you  had  mapped  out  in  your  head.  The  strange 
things  that  get  into  our  heads  I 

I  notice  that  you  promise  some  further  description 
of  Russian  conditions,  so  that  we  can  "see  and  esti- 
mate the  Bolshevist  Government  in  its  true  propor- 
tions." This  is  a  matter  upon  which  your  views  will 
be  of  absorbing  interest  to  me.  Especially  I  beg 
you  to  "estimate  in  its  true  proportions"  the  recent 
attempt  of  Lenin  to  corrupt  our  Navy.  Give  us 
some  guidance  on  this  point. 

I  have  also  seen  it  announced  that  you  intend  to 
exercise  your  prophetic  powers,  and,  more  or  less 
definitely,  to  adumbrate  the  future  of  Russia.  Now, 
my  dear  Wells,  as  your  constant  and  faithful  mentor, 
I  implore  you  not  to  prophesy  about  the  future  of 
Russia.  Remember  all  the  things  you  prophesied 
about  during  the  war.  After  your  handling  of  the 
past  and  present  Russia,  do  you  think  it  will  be  wise 
of  you  to  tackle  the  future? 

Besides,  Archibald  Spofforth  is  on  the  watch  for 
you,  the  moment  you  begin  to  prophesy  about  any- 


26  My  Dear  Wells 

thing.  You  will  remember  that  I  had  to  defend  you 
against  him  when,  in  his  "Noted  English  Seers,"  he 
classed  you  as  being,  on  the  whole,  rather  less  trust- 
worthy in  dealing  with  world  problems  than  Old 
Moore.  I  hope  I  am  not  betraying  any  confidence 
when  I  tell  you  that  Spofforth  is  anxiously  looking 
out  for  your  prognostications  about  Russia.  Spof- 
forth  has  a  brutal  disrespect  for  your  theories. 
Don't  give  him  a  chance.  Rebuke  him  by  holding 
a  dignified  silence  about  the  future  of  Russia. 

If  I  am  not  usurping  your  prerogative,  I  will 
myself  make  a  prophecy  about  the  future  of  Russia. 
Russia  will  return  to  tolerable  conditions  of  life,  to 
order,  health,  security  and  prosperity,  in  the  meas- 
ure that  she  returns  to  and  obeys  those  first  abiding 
principles  of  social  conduct  and  civilised  government 
which  are  always  and  everywhere  in  operation; 
which  fortify  and  preserve  a  State  if  they  are 
obeyed;  which  disintegrate  and  destroy  a  State  if 
they  are  disobeyed. 

What  those  first  abiding  principles  of  civilised 
government  are,  together  with  the  incidence  and 
rigour  of  their  operation,  I  propose  to  explain  to 
you  as  I  find  leisure  and  opportunity.  Meantime, 
I  await  your  further  deliverances  upon  Russian 
affairs,  and  will  deal  with  them  as  they  reach  me  at 
home  or  abroad. 

Faithfully  yours,        Henry  Arthur  Jones. 

3rd  November,  1920. 


Strange  Things  Get  Into  His  Head    27 

/  sailed  for  New  York  on  November  6th  and  the 
remainder  of  the  series  of  letters  were  written  in 
that  city.  H.  A.  j. 


LETTER  FIVE. 

MR.  WELLS  INVENTS  A  NEV\^  KIND 
OF  HONESTY. 

My  Dear  Wells, — 

I  trust  you  will  acquit  me  of  any  intentional  dis- 
courtesy in  delaying  to  reply  to  your  second  article 
on  "Russia  in  the  Shadows"  {Drift  and  Salvage 
— "Sunday  Times,"  November  14,  1920.)  It 
did  not  reach  me  until  I  arrived  in  New  York  a 
few  days  ago.  I  take  my  earliest  leisure  to  offer 
you  such  comments  and  criticism  as  it  seems  to  de- 
mand, and  I  ask  your  permission  to  lay  them  first 
before  American  readers  and  thinkers. 

The  writer  in  the  English  journal  who  recently 
claimed  that  you  are  "thinking  for  half  Europe" 
did  not  specify  which  half  of  Europe  is  under  your 
intellectual  superintendence.  I  suppose  he  intended 
to  convey  that  you  are  thinking  for  that  very  large 
number  of  Europeans — apparently  he  estimates 
them  at  half  the  population — who  are  unable  to 
think  for  themselves.  I  am  of  opinion,  that  if  sta- 
tistics were  available,  we  should  find  that  the  num- 
ber of  non-thinkers   in  Europe   would  enormously 

exceed  his  estimate  of  one-half  the  population.     At 

28 


Invents  a  New  Kind  of  Honesty    29 

any  rate,  in  my  desire  to  be  generous  to  you,  I  should 
have  given  you  a  much  larger  number  of  possible 
disciples,  and  a  far  wider  range  of  wandering  in  the 
present  chaos  of  political  thought. 

Through  an  oversight,  the  inspired  writer  omitted 
to  mention  how  many  Americans  you  are  thinking 
for.  Judging  from  the  results,  are  you  not  already 
a  little  overweighted  with  your  task  of  thinking  for 
half  Europe?  Ought  you  to  load  yourself  with  the 
further  responsibility  of  thinking  for  any  consider- 
able number  of  Americans?  I  speak  with  a  care 
for  your  reputation. 

However,  you  seem  to  have  accepted  this  addi- 
tional burden  of  vicarious  intellectual  activity  on 
behalf  of  the  American,  as  well  as  the  European, 
Continent.  I  have  no  means  of  estimating  what  is 
the  proportion  of  American  citizens  who  are  unable 
to  think  for  themselves  on  social  and  political  mat- 
ters, and  who  are  therefore  looking  to  you  for 
guidance  and  enlightenment.  Let  me  say  that, 
in  the  grave  questions  at  issue  between  us,  I 
will  cheerfully  allow  you  to  think  for  all  who  are 
unable  to  think  for  themselves,  and  will  myself  be 
content  to  think  ujith  those  who  are  able  to  think 
for  themselves.  I  hope  you  will  be  satisfied  with 
the  sphere  of  influence  I  have  allotted  to  you,  and 
that  you  will  acknowledge  I  have  made  a  fair,  and 
even  a  magnanimous,  division  of  our  respective 
provinces  of  thought.     I  assure  you  that  I  will  not 


30  My  Dear  Wells 

try  to  seduce  your  disciples  from  you;  nor  do  I  sup- 
pose that  you  will  seek  to  gain  adherents  within  my 
circle. 

Having  thus  carefully  defined  our  respective  re- 
lations to  readers  and  thinkers  on  both  continents,  I 
address  myself  to  the  examination  of  your  second 
paper  on  Russian  conditions. 

Your  first  paper  contained  a  terrible  account  of 
the  misery,  hunger  and  despair  of  the  masses  of  the 
common  people.  Your  second  paper  gives  an 
equally  distressing  picture  of  the  pitiable  condition 
of  the  literary,  artistic,  and  scientific  classes.  In 
some  respects  it  is  more  disheartening  to  read  than 
your  first  article.  As  we  are  more  grieved  and 
pained  to  visit  a  lunatic  asylum  than  a  general  hos- 
pital, so  we  are  more  grieved  and  pained  to  watch 
the  dissolution  of  the  Intellectual  and  artistic  life  of 
a  nation,  than  to  watch  the  collapse  of  its  commercial 
and  economic  activities. 

You  dwell,  with  many  heartbreaking  details,  upon 
the  miseries  and  privations  of  the  Russian  scientists, 
artists,  composers  and  men  of  letters;  you  speak  of 
their  futile  struggles;  the  waste  of  their  great  gifts; 
the  high  mortality  among  them;  the  abject  poverty 
and  desperate  straits  of  those  that  remain.  The  one 
bright  spot  in  the  wide  stretch  of  Intellectual  and 
artistic  desolation  Is  the  Russian  Theatre.  You  tell 
us  that  the  great  actor  Shalyapin  maintains  what  is 
perhaps    the    last    "fairly    comfortable"    home    in 


Invents  a  New  Kind  of  Honesty    31 

Russia.  One  "fairly  comfortable"  home,  and  that 
the  last,  in  the  wide  Russian  continent,  with  its  hun- 
dred million  of  inhabitants!  I  get  some  exceed- 
ingly small  satisfaction  from  knowing  that  this  last 
"fairly  comfortable"  home  in  Russia  is  tenanted 
by  an  actor.  For  nearly  forty  years  I  have  been 
vainly  trying  to  persuade  Englishmen  to  take  an 
intelligent  interest  and  pride  in  their  national  drama 
and  their  national  theatre.  By  the  grimmest  irony, 
the  Russian  people  are  starving,  but  their  theatre, 
it  seems,  is  vigorous,  healthy  and  operative;  while 
it  would  not  ,be  a  wild  exaggeration  to  say  that  the 
situation  is  reversed  in  England. 

But  apart  from  the  theatre,  you  testify  that  the 
higher  and  nobler  centres  of  Russian  life  are  smitten 
with  creeping  palsy.  The  scientists,  artists  and 
writers  lie  helpless  and  numbed  in  cold  obstruction; 
groping  with  pitiful,  futile  efforts  to  reach  bade  to 
life;  cut  off  from  the  arteries  of  civilisation;  under- 
nourished, save  by  despair;  stricken,  bedridden, 
impotent,  moribund;  a  perishing  brain  in  the  fast 
perishing  body  of  Russian  civilisation. 

That  is  the  account  you  give  us  of  the  intellectual 
classes  in  Russia.  While  you  relate  the  facts  that 
came  under  your  observation,  we  are  in  sorrowful 
accord  with  you.  You  are  but  one  of  a  hundred 
voices,  all  bringing  us  the  same  despairing  message. 

It  is  when  you  interpret  these  terrible  facts  that 
you  find  yourself  challenged  alike  by  reason  and  by 


32  My  Dear  Wells 

humanity.  In  this  second  paper,  as  In  your  first, 
you  seek  excuses  for  the  men  who  have  brought 
Russia  to  this  dreadful  condition;  and  you  indicate 
your  sympathy  with  them  in  their  determination  to 
spread  Internationalism  over  the  civilised  world. 
You  insinuate  that  most  of  the  evils  that  afflict  the 
Russian  people  are  due  to  the  misguided  policy  of 
our  own  and  the  allied  Governments,  who  did  not 
take  your  advice  at  the  start,  and  embrace  the  Bol- 
shevist leaders  and  Bolshevist  principles  as  the  only 
means  of  salvation  for  humanity. 

My  dear  Wells,  if  you  would  but  show  a  quarter 
of  the  good-will  for  your  own  country,  and  for  your 
own  Government,  in  their  present  difficulties  and 
trials,  that  you  show  for  the  Bolshevist  Government, 
you  would  be  a  desirable  British  citizen. 

But  it  has  got  into  your  head  that  International 
government  by  the  proletariat  is  the  only  cure  for 
the  world's  sorrov/s  and  evils  and  disorders.  By 
the  operation  of  that  fatal  law  which,  when  a  theory 
or  an  opinion  has  once  obtained  lodgment  in  a  man's 
brain,  condemns  him  to  harbour  and  cherish  it  all 
the  more  fondly  the  more  it  is  proved  to  be  false; 
condemns  him  stubbornly  to  refuse  to  examine  his 
theory  in  the  light  of  facts;  condemns  him  to  force 
facts  into  the  frame  of  his  theory,  and  to  shut  his 
eyes  to  all  facts  that  will  not  submit  themselves  to 
his  distortion — by  the  operation  of  this  fatal  law 
you  are  condemned,  my  dear  Wells,  to  go  on  finding 


Invents  a  New  Kind  of  Honesty    33 

excuses  for  the  Bolshevist  Government;  to  explain 
away  its  murderous  tyrannies  and  cruelties,  and  to 
suggest  that  it  remains  the  only  means  of  dragging 
Russia  out  of  Its  pit  of  misery,  poverty  and  despair. 

There  Is  a  wealth  of  fine  confused  thinking  In  this 
second  article  of  yours.  It  would  be  a  lengthy, 
but  not  difficult,  task  to  take  from  it  certain  of  your 
own  phrases,  dicta,  and  admissions,  and  construct 
out  of  them  a  terrible  Indictment  of  the  whole  system 
of  Bolshevist  Government,  including  those  functions 
of  it  which  you  esteem  as  constructive  and  hold  up 
for  our  admiration. 

I  will  select  one  sentence  of  yours  from  this 
paper,  and  for  the  present  leave  unexamined  a  score 
of  others  that  furnish  a  convincing  refutation  of 
your  whole  social  and  political  theory.  With  pene- 
trating sagacity,  you  thus  deliver  yourself — "When 
a  social  order  based  on  private  property  crashes, 
when  private  property  Is  with  some  abruptness  and 
no  qualifications  abolished,  this  does  not  abolish  and 
destroy  things  which  have  hitherto  constituted  pri- 
vate property."  It  is  plain  from  what  has  hap- 
pened in  Russia  that,  when  private  property  is 
abolished,  a  vast  amount  of  it  does  get  destroyed, 
and  does  not  get  replaced;  and  that  this  leads  to  the 
woeful  discomfort  and  poverty  of  the  whole  people. 
And,  further,  as  you  go  on  to  show,  much  of  the 
private  property  that  has  not  been  destroyed,  and 
which  belonged  to  individuals,  and  was  useful  and 


34  My  Dear  Wells 

pleasing  to  them,  and  helped  them  to  adorn  their 
lives — much  of  this  private  property  is  now  useless 
to  everybody,  and  is  rotting  in  lumber  rooms,  and 
will  probably  be  destroyed  or  plundered  as  time 
goes  by. 

Take,  for  instance,  the  stores  of  beautiful  old 
lace  that  were  robbed  from  Russian  gentlewomen 
and  that,  you  tell  us,  are  now  packed  away  in  the 
former  British  Embassy.  Lace  has  always  been  one 
of  the  endearing  ornaments  of  delicate  and  refined 
womanhood;  one  of  those  graceful  perquisites  of 
her  sex  whereby  the  mate  of  man  has  made  herself 
something  different  from  the  mate  of  the  gorilla. 
What  do  you  propose  should  be  done  with  these 
stores  of  beautiful  old  lace  that  the  Bolsheviki  have 
confiscated?  Would  you  let  them  stay  in  their  cases 
till  they  drop  into  dust?  Would  you  ration  them 
out,  so  far  as  they  will  go,  to  drape  the  shivering 
shoulders  of  a  few  wretched  half-clad  Russian 
women  and  to  mock  their  rags  and  hunger?  What 
do  you  say  should  be  done  with  all  this  beautiful  lace 
and  furniture  and  other  treasures  that  were  fash- 
ioned to  be  of  use  and  adornment  to  private  persons 
as  their  private  property,  and  can  have  no  purpose 
unless  they  are  thus  owned  and  used  by  individuals? 
Would  you  destroy  them?  They  are  the  marks  and 
precious  effects  of  a  high  civilisation.  If  you  would 
destroy  them  you  might,  with  equal  reason  and  from 


Invents  a  New  Kind  of  Honesty    35 

the  same  motive,  destroy  all  the  other  chief  results 
of  civilisation,  which,  indeed,  seems  to  be  the  final 
goal  of  Bolshevism.  You  do  not  say  how  you  would 
dispose  of  all  these  confiscated  treasures.  You  fore- 
shadow, apparently  with  considerable  satisfaction, 
a  like  approaching  general  confiscation  of  English 
personal  treasures  and  adornments — which  may 
very  well  happen  if  our  English  working  classes 
make  an  attempt  to  put  your  theories  into  practice 
and  abolish  private  property. 

Let  us  revert  for  a  moment  to  the  beginning  of 
this  sentence  which  I  have  chosen  out  of  many  others 
for  a  close  examination. 

"When  a  social  order  based  on  private  prop- 
erty  ,"  you  say,  and  I  arrest  you  on  these  words. 

You  write  as  if  the  abolition  of  private  property 
had  been  an  occasional  normal  and  natural  event 
in  history.  You  have  lately  been  making  some  ex- 
tensive studies  in  world  history.  Have  you  ever 
known  any  social  order  that  has  not  been  based  on 
private  property?  Or  that  has  not  acknowledged 
large  rights  of  ownership  in  private  property?  Do 
you  not  conduct  your  own  affairs  with  confidence 
that  the  British  Government  (which  you  lose  no 
chance  of  abusing)  will  assure  you  the  peaceful 
possession  of  your  own  motor  car  and  the  due  pay- 
ment of  your  dividends,  so  that  you  are  thus  enabled 
to  "think  for  half  Europe,"  and  being  a  possessor 


36  My  Dear  Wells 

of  private  property  yourself  you  can  safely  rail 
against  private  property,  and  being  a  capitalist  your- 
self you  can  safely  rail  against  capitalism? 

Will  you  give  us  some  intelligible  explanation  of 
how  any  social  order  can  be  established  or  long 
continued,  without  a  wide  recognition  of  the  rights 
of  private  property?  This  is  a  large  general  ques- 
tion, and  cannot  here  be  debated.  When  I  have 
leisure,  I  will  invite  you  to  its  further  and  full  con- 
sideration. 

You  claim  in  your  first  article  that  the  Bolshevist 
Government  is  the  only  Government  that  is  possible 
in  Russia  at  the  present  time.  In  the  sense  that 
nothing  is  possible  except  that  which  actually  hap- 
pens, you  state  what  is  obviously  true.  In  the  same 
sense  it  is  true  that  the  ideas  which  have  actually  got 
into  your  head  are  the  only  ideas  which  could  pos- 
sibly enter  there.  It  is  equally  true  that  the  only 
possible  course  of  action  that  I  can  take  with  regard 
to  your  Ideas,  is  to  do  my  best  to  chase  them  out  of 
your  head. 

In  the  same  sense,  It  Is  true  that  the  only  possible 
Government  in  England  In  1630  was  the  Govern- 
ment of  Charles  I.  But  Cromwell  came,  and  soon 
made  possible  another  form  of  government.  Again, 
the  only  possible  Government  in  France  in  1780  was 
the  Government  of  Louis  XV.  But  Napoleon  came, 
and  soon  made  possible  another  form  of  govern- 
ment.    In  191 8,  Kerensky  held  for  a  time  the  reins 


Invents  a  New  Kind  of  Honesty    37 

of  government  In  Russia.  If  Kerensky  had  been  a 
man  of  Insight  and  action,  instead  of  being  a 
wordster,  if  he  had  joined  forces  with  Korniloff 
instead  of  betraying  him,  quite  another  form  of  gov- 
ernment would  have  been  possible  and  operative  in 
Russia  to-day.  The  horrors  and  bloodshed  that 
attended  the  revolution  would  have  been  largely 
avoided,  together  with  the  misery  and  starvation 
that  have  followed.  Russia  would  not  now  be  in 
her  present  dreadful  plight;  the  whole  European 
situation  would  probably  have  been  stabilised,  and 
Eastern  Europe  would  to-day  be  settling  down  to 
peaceful  industry  and  security. 

The  reply  to  your  assertion  that  the  Bolshevist 
Government  is  the  only  possible  Government  in 
Russia  to-day.  Is  that  this  Government  is  founded  on 
theories  which,  being  enforced,  have  cruelly  de- 
stroyed half  the  population  of  the  large  cities,  and 
now  oblige  the  miserable  remnant  of  them  to  live 
on  the  verge  of  starvation.  If  such  are  the  evident 
results  of  Bolshevist  Government,  as  your  papers 
testify,  clearly  the  only  possible  form  of  Government 
in  Russia  Is  an  Impossible  one !  It  must  either  re- 
nounce Its  theories,  or  dissolve  with  the  dissolving 
remains  of  Russian  civilisation. 

You  seem  to  have  some  apprehension  of  this  con- 
summation, so  far  as  your  illogical  apologies  for 
Bolshevism  will  allow  you  a  clear  perception  of  the 
whole  situation.     For  you  state  that  this  Bolshevist 


38  My  Dear  Wells 

Government  is  based  on  Marxian  principles,  and 
these  Marxian  principles  you  ruthlessly  excommuni- 
cate as  crude  and  unworkable  political  heresies.  In 
my  next  paper,  I  will  try  to  unravel  the  tangled  rela- 
tions of  Marxian  principles  with  your  own  political 
creed;  so  far  as  you  give  us  any  indications  of  what 
particular  brand  of  socialism  you  hold,  and  what  are 
its  essential  tenets. 

By  your  condemnation  of  Marxian  principles  you 
bring  a  deadly,  unanswerable  charge  against  the 
present  Bolshevist  Government.  On  the  other  hand, 
since  its  first  assumption  of  power,  you  have  praised 
the  Bolshevist  leaders  as  "farseeing  statesmen," 
"shining  clear,"  "profoundly  wise,"  "intimately  ac- 
quainted with  social  and  economic  questions,  and 
indeed  with  almost  everything  that  matters  in  real 
politics." 

These  and  many  other  laudatory  epithets  you  have 
showered  upon  the  men  who  have  brought  the  Rus- 
sian people  to  their  present  dreadful  condition,  and 
who,  as  you  carefully  explain  to  us,  are  now  govern- 
ing Russia  on  entirely  false  and  vicious  Marxian 
principles.  If  the  body  of  your  disciples  in  Europe 
and  America,  the  millions  whom  you  are  "thinking 
for,"  were  able  to  collate  and  examine  your  confused 
utterances,  wouldn't  you  be  in  a  very  awkward  posi- 
tion as  a  leader  of  European  thought? 

However,  having  throughout  warmly  supported 
the  Bolshevist  leaders  in  the  English  papers,  you  are 


Invents  a  New  Kind  of  Honesty    39 

now  bound  to  say  something  in  their  favour.  So, 
having  witnessed  for  yourself  the  disastrous  results 
of  their  administration,  you  cast  about  to  think  what 
you  can  advance  to  their  credit,  and  thus  justify 
your  wholly  inconsistent  and  Illogical  sympathy  with 
them.  And  the  only  credential  to  character  that 
you  can  give  them  Is  that  they  are  "honest." 

You  have  accused  our  English  statesmen  of  being 
"crudely  ignorant  of  the  world  of  modern  ideas." 
In  that  strange  "world  of  modern  ideas"  where  you 
formulate  your  theories,  honesty  seems  to  have  quite 
changed  its  type  and  quality.  What  kind  of  honesty 
is  this  that  you  claim  for  Bolshevism?  Has  it  any 
connection  with  the  Eighth  Commandment?  Ap- 
parently not. 

If  you  mean  national  honesty,  the  Bolshevist  Gov- 
ernment has  repudiated  its  national  debt.  Our 
sorely  tried  French  allies,  to  whom  Russia  is  largely 
indebted,  do  not  like  this  new  kind  of  honesty.  And 
because  they  protest  against  it  and  will  not  accept 
it,  you,  my  dear  Wells,  who  are  always  eager  to 
discredit  France  as  well  as  England — you  charge 
the  French  with  being  vindictive  creditors,  and  you 
monstrously  claim  that  their  natural  desire  to  get 
paid  is  one  of  the  chief  causes  of  the  present  de- 
plorable condition  of  Russia. 

Does  the  repudiation  of  national  debt  count  as 
an  honest  proceeding  in  your  strange  "world  of 
modern  ideas?"     Have  you  ever  considered  what 


40  My  Dear  Wells 

would  be  the  effect  of  a  general  repudiation  of  na- 
tional debts  on  the  entire  civilisation  of  the  world? 
Are  you  able  even  to  imagine  the  incalculable  misery 
and  Kuin  it  would  work  for  a  generation  to  come? 

Coming  to  the  matter  of  honesty  toward  indi- 
viduals, it  appears  that  you  indorse  the  seizure  of 
valuable  old  lace  and  personal  treasures  and  effects 
as  an  honest  proceeding.  You  look  upon  it  as  a 
natural  and  desirable  part  of  your  scheme  for  doing 
away  with  private  property.  Under  the  old 
pernicious  system  that  has  hitherto  prevailed,  these 
things  were  possessed  and  enjoyed  by  their  owners, 
not  always  perhaps  the  most  deserving  people.  Still, 
they  were  owned  and  used  and  enjoyed,  so  that 
numbers  of  people  had  the  advantage  of  them. 
Under  the  new  "honest"  Bolshevist  Government, 
nobody  has  the  advantage  of  them.  They  are 
mostly  destroyed  and  the  remainder  is  left  to  perish 
unused. 

But  let  us  for  a  moment  grant  your  curious  claim 
that  Bolshevism  is  honest.  My  dear  Wells,  the 
profound  studies  that  you  have  recently  been  mak- 
ing in  world  history,  cannot  have  left  you  in  igno- 
rance of  the  damnable  fact  that  some  of  the  greatest 
mischiefs  and  misfortunes  that  have  overtaken 
mankind,  have  been  caused  by  quite  honest  people 
working  from  mistaken  theories. 

I  should  not  dream  of  questioning  the  honesty  of 
your  own  thinking  in  these  matters.    Alas,  whatever 


Invents  a  New  Kind  of  Honesty        41 

credit  I  give  to  your  honesty  I  must  subtract  from 
your  sapience. 

Taken  as  a  whole,  your  second  article  on  "Russia 
in  the  Shadow,"  with  its  inevitable  deductions  is 
a  further  and  most  powerful  condemnation  of 
the  political  theories  that  you  profess,  and  that 
you  are  spreading  among  your  legions  of  readers. 
Do  you  not  see  that,  my  dear  Wells?  Read  it  over 
carefully  again. 

Archibald  Spofforth  has  compared  you  with  Old 
Moore,  as  a  prophet  and  interpreter  of  world  move- 
ments. For  myself,  I  see  you  as  an  inverted  prophet 
Balaam.  Balaam,  you  remember,  was  called  upon 
by  Balak  to  curse  the  children  of  Israel.  By  a  Provi- 
dential intervention,  Balaam  found  himself  com- 
pelled to  bless  them  altogether.  You,  on  the  other 
hand,  were  called  upon  to  bless  the  Bolshevist  Gov- 
ernment. Not  so  much  by  a  lucky  intervention  of 
Providence,  as  by  the  overwhelming  pressure  of 
facts,  you,  my  dear  Wells,  have  been  compelled  to 
curse  the  Bolsheviki  altogether.  There  is  this  much 
to  be  said  for  Balaam.  After  much  prevarication 
and  some  self-contradiction,  he  finally  came  down 
on  the  right  side  of  the  fence.  I  am  not  without 
hope  that  you  will  do  the  same.  I  will  render  you 
some  further  assistance  to  this  end. 

Henry  Arthur  Jones. 

26th  November,   1920. 


LETTER  SIX. 

MR.  WELLS  GETS  FURTHER 
ENTANGLED. 

My  Dear  Wells, — 

There  is  so  great  an  amount  of  loose  and  con- 
fused thinking  in  the  world — in  addition  to  your 
own — that  it  seems  advisable  to  make  an  organised 
effort  to  deal  with  it.  I  am  sure  you  will  claim 
that  this  effort,  like  every  other  human  activity, 
should  be  an  International  one.  After  much  pro- 
longed and  earnest  consideration,  I  am  convinced 
that  this  important  matter  should  be  placed  under 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  League  of  Nations.  This, 
I  allow,  is  a  startling  proposal.  I  further  allow 
that  it  is  an  utterly  impracticable  one.  But  surely 
that  is  no  reason  why  it  should  not  form  part  of 
the  League's  general  scheme  of  operations,  and 
afford  its  members  another  attractive  subject  for 
debate. 

Without  searching  for  the  permanent  and  under- 
lying cause  of  War,  it  must  be  granted  that  the 
late  disastrous  world  conflict  was  immediately 
caused  by  the  failure  of  a  certain  number  of  Euro- 

42 


Mr.  Wells  Gets  Further  Entangled  43 

pean  politicians  to  think  clearly,  honestly  and 
righteously  upon  the  questions  that  you  and  I  are 
now  discussing — with  less  alacrity  of  cheerful  re- 
sponse on  your  part  than  I  could  wish  you  to  show. 

Those  who  have  accurate  and  retentive  memories 
will  be  able  to  recall'  that  the  League  of  Nations 
was  invented  for  the  purpose  of  doing  away  with 
war.  Its  motto,  I  am  told,  is  to  be  emblazoned  on 
a  shield  of  gold  (an  involuntary  gift  from  the 
opulent  taxpayers  of  Europe)  and  is  to  be  inscribed 
over  the  portico  of  its  hotel  in  Geneva.  That  motto 
runs  as  follows:  "Let  every  nation  meddle  in  the 
affairs  of  every  other  nation."  Putting  aside  the 
question  whether  this  is  the  best  method  of  securing 
that  international  good-will  and  amity  which  we  all 
desire,  it  is  manifest  that  careless  and  disordered 
thinking  is  an  accessory  cause  of  war.  Now,  if  the 
League  of  Nations  is  benevolently  engaged  in  stop- 
ping war,  it  may  be  quite  as  benevolently  engaged 
in  stopping  the  careless  and  disordered  thinking  that 
leads  to  war — or  at  least  in  debating  about  the 
matter.  The  League  has  got  this  large  hotel  in 
Geneva,  and  its  members  must  debate  about  some- 
thing. As  a  taxpayer,  I  contribute  to  the  enormous 
expenses  of  the  League.  I  hope,  therefore,  that  I 
am  entitled  to  suggest  a  subject  for  its  discussion. 

Further,  my  dear  Wells,  in  proposing  to  place  all 
the  careless  and  disordered  thinking  in  the  world 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  League  of  Nations,  I 


44  My  Dear  Wells 

am  paying  a  very  pretty  compliment  to  yourself. 
For  this  same  League  of  Nations  was  one  of  the 
many  things  that  you  so  lavishly  prophesied  about 
during  the  war.  It  is  true  that  before  it  was  con- 
stituted, the  League  tended  to  cloud  that  good  un- 
derstanding between  America  and  Britain  upon 
which  the  peace  of  the  whole  world  depends.  It  is 
also  true  that  one  of  its  first  effects,  after  it  was 
constituted,  was  to  cloud  that  good  understanding 
between  Britain  and  France  which  is  almost,  if  not 
quite,  as  necessary  for  the  preservation  of  the 
world's  peace.  But  if  I  know  anything  of  the  con- 
stitution of  your  mind,  if  I  rightly  estimate  your 
loyal,  unflinching  adherence  to  your  theories,  even 
when  they  are  working  disastrously  for  mankind, 
your  faith  in  the  League  of  Nations  remains  un- 
shaken. 

For  these  reasons,  then,  I  propose  that  the  League 
of  Nations  shall  be  appointed  to  control — or  at  least 
to  discuss — the  vast  amount  of  loose,  disordered 
thinking  that  goes  on  in  the  world. 

I  suppose  that  the  League  will  proceed  in  this 
matter  by  its  favourite  system  of  mandates.  I  have, 
therefore,  applied  to  the  Council  of  the  League  of 
Nations  for  a  mandate  to  superintend  your  social 
and  political  philosophy.  I  hope  you  will  take  this 
as  evidence  of  my  continued  interest  in  your  attempts 
to    impose    your    international    theories    upon    the 


Mr.  Wells  Gets  Further  Entangled  45 

kindly  simplicity  of  those  wRom  you  are  "thinking 
for." 

It  would  be  a  grateful  acknowledgment  of  the 
services  I  am  rendering  you,  and  it  would  also  be  a 
flattering  courtesy  to  the  League  itself,  if  you  would 
also  apply  to  the  Council  for  a  mandate  to  look  after 
my  thinking  on  these  questions.  For,  if  I  am  hold- 
ing wrong  opinions  about  momentous  matters  upon 
which  the  peace  and  security  of  the  whole  world 
depend,  you  could  not  do  me,  or  the  public,  a  greater 
service  than  to  expose  my  fallacies  with  the  same 
vigilance  and  pertinacity  that  I  am  trying  to  expose 
yours.  Unlike  yourself,  the  moment  I  find  I  am 
holding  a  wrong  opinion  I  turn  the  veriest  coward 
and  renegade.  I  do  not  stand  by  it  and  seek  to 
justify  it.     I  abjure  it  and  take  to  my  heels. 

It  mxay  be  that  the  Council  of  the  League  of 
Nations  will  refuse  to  issue  a  mandate  to  me  to  look 
after  your  thinking.  I  do  not  think  this  is  likely. 
Mandates  have  not  been  going  off  very  well  lately, 
and  I  take  it  that  the  League  will  be  only  too  glad 
to  issue  at  least  one  mandate  that  will  be  scrupu- 
lously, industriously  and  rigorously  obeyed.  If, 
however,  the  Council  refuse  to  grant  me  a  mandate 
to  watch  over  your  lucubrations,  I  shall  follow  the 
course  that  is  usually  adopted  with  regard  to  the 
League's  decisions.  I  shall  take  no  notice  of  them. 
I  shall  issue  a  mandate  to  myself. 


46  My  Dear  Wells 

In  pursuance  of  this  resolve  I  proceed  to  my 
promised  examination  of  your  third  paper  on  "Rus- 
sia in  the  Shadow"  ("The  New  York  Sunday 
Times,"  November  21st,   1920). 

In  reading  it  through,  I  was  so  much  struck  by 
two  separate  passages  in  it  that  I  think  them  worthy 
to  be  detached  from  the  body  of  the  paper  and  set 
forth  in  juxtaposition.  In  the  beginning  of  the 
article  you  say,  "To-day  the  Bolshevist  Government 
sits,  I  believe,  in  Moscow,  as  securely  established  as 
any  Government  in  Europe."  That  sentence  tacitly 
affirms  the  enduring  stability  of  Bolshevist  rule. 
Later  in  the  article  you  say,  "If  we  help  Baron 
Wrangel  to  pull  down  the  by  no  means  firmly  estab- 
lished Government  in  Moscow "   That  sentence 

tacitly  affirms  the  precarious  instability  of  Bolshevist 
rule. 

Of  course,  you  may  juggle  with  both  sentences 
until  you  prove  that  you  didn't  mean  to  convey 
either  one  impression  or  the  other.  In  the  first 
sentence,  it  suited  your  general  purpose  to  frighten 
us  away  from  questioning  the  authority  and  perma- 
nence of  Bolshevist  rule.  In  the  second  sentence,  it 
suited  your  general  purpose  to  frighten  us  into 
supporting  Bolshevist  rule,  because  it  is  an  attempt 
to  enforce  Internationalist  theories.  You  may 
plead  that  your  inconsistencies  are  not  likely  to  be 
noticed  by  your  disciples,  who  for  the  most  part 
allow  you  to  do  their  thinking  for  them.    It  is  quite 


Mr.  Wells  Gets  Further  Entangled.  47 

likely  that  you  do  not  notice  these  inconsistencies 
yourself.  But  if  you  will  not  think  me  annoyingly 
inquisitiv^e,  may  I  press  you  to  tell  us  which  of  these 
two  contradictory  opinions  about  Bolshevist  rule 
you  do  really  hold? 

I  may  remind  you  that  you  took,  what  has  been 
called  with  exaggerated  accuracy,  a  week-end  trip  to 
Russia,  in  order  that  you  might  learn  all  about 
the  conditions  of  the  country,  and  the  aims  and 
prospects  of  its  present  rulers.  Very  plainly  the 
destiny  of  millions  in  Europe  depends  upon  whether 
or  not  Bolshevist  government  is  securely  established 
in  Moscow.  You  are  at  liberty  not  to  have  an 
opinion  upon  this  question  of  sovereign  importance 
to  all  the  world.  You  can  frankly  say,  "I  don't 
know."  But,  kindly  disposed  as  I  am  to  allow  you 
the  widest  and  wildest  latitude  of  unsupported  and 
unverified  assertion,  indulgent  as  I  am  to  all  human 
frailties,  I  really  cannot  permit  you  to  hold  two  con- 
tradictory opinions  upon  the  same  matter  of  fact. 
That  is  asking  too  much  of  my  good  nature.  Please 
tell  us  which  opinion  you  do  really  hold.  The  least 
respect  you  can  show  to  those  whose  thinking  you 
are  doing  for  them,  is  to  be  coherently  wrong. 

Having  given  this  striking  and  characteristic 
example  of  the  measure  of  your  ability  to  think  for 
other  people,  and  of  the  value  of  your  pronounce- 
ments, I  might  well  be  absolved  from  any  further 
analysis  either  of  the  statements  you  make  about 


48  My  Dear  Wells 

Russian  conditions,  or  of  the  conclusions  you  draw 
from  them.  In  this  third  paper  there  is  again  a 
wealth  of  confused  and  contradictory  utterance  and 
inference.  A  less  gentle-mannered  man  than  myself 
would  be  tempted  to  a  severe  exposure  and  reproof 
of  it.  But  I  wish  to  let  you  off  easily,  in  the  hope 
that  my  moderation  will  incline  you  to  a  judicious 
suppression  of  your  more  glaring  delinquencies  and 
illogicalities. 

I  must,  however,  glance  at  one  or  two  of  the  many 
loose  and  provocative  passages  which  I  had  marked 
for  dissection  and  refutation.  In  sketching  the  con- 
dition of  Russia  in  the  closing  months  of  19 17  you 
remark:  "Through  this  fevered  and  confused  coun- 
try went  representatives  of  Britain  and  France,  blind 
to  the  quality  of  immense  and  tragic  disaster  about 
them,  intent  only  upon  the  war." 

I  think  it  impossible  that  any  representative  of 
Britain  or  France  at  that  terrible  time  could  be  blind 
to  "the  quality  of  immense  and  tragic  disaster  about 
them,"  not  only  in  Russia,  but  throughout  Europe. 
If  they  were  blind  how  can  you  possibly  know  it? 
Have  you  questioned  them  about  their  impressions 
of  the  Russian  situation  at  that  time?  What  is  your 
authority  for  that  statement?  What  prompts  you 
to  make  it,  except  your  ineradicable  antipathy  to  your 
own  country  and  to  France?  It  is  probable  in  the 
highest  degree  that  in  the  midst  of  the  threatening 


Mr.  Wells  Gets  Further  Entangled  49 

and  increasing  anxieties  of  the  whole  European  situa- 
tion in  those  months,  the  representatives  of  Britain 
and  France  in  Russia,  instead  of  being  blind,  saw 
very  clearly  that  the  only  way  of  avoiding  a  far  more 
immense  and  tragic  disaster  for  Russia  was  to  be 
"intent  on  the  war."  In  that  case  their  eyes  and 
their  intelligence  were  far  more  wide  awake  than 
yours. 

For  again,  I  must  remind  you,  and  I  do  here 
stamp  and  engrave  it  upon  your  memory,  and  upon 
the  memory  of  every  one  who  reads  these  letters, 
so  that  they  may  have  a  perpetual  test  of  the  value 
of  your  judgment  in  all  these  supreme  matters — I 
do  here  insistently  remind  you,  my  dear  Wells,  that 
in  those  closing  months  of  19 17  you  were  calling 
upon  England,  in  the  columns  of  our  leading  jour- 
nals, to  sacrifice  and  abandon  everything  that  she 
had  taken  up  arms  to  guard,  and  to  make  an  in- 
famous, ignoble,  defeatist  peace  with  Germany.  I 
brought  you  to  account  then,  as  I  am  bringing  you 
to  account  now,  and  as  I  shall  continue  to  bring  you 
to  account,  while  you  continue  to  backbite  your 
country,  and  to  fondle  those  who  are  seeking  to  drag 
it  into  revolution  and  anarchy. 

In  those  late  months  of  19 17  you  were  perni- 
ciously intent  upon  stopping  the  war.  Naturally, 
you  have  a  bad  word  for  the  British  and  French 
representatives  who  were  intent  upon  urging  Russia 


50  My  Dear  Wells 

to  carry  it  on.  Had  Russia  been  able  to  follow  their 
counsels,  she  would  probably  have  been  spared  the 
worst  of  her  present  miseries. 

Let  us  touch  upon  another  point.  You  speak  with 
admiration  of  the  genius  of  the  ex-Pacifist  Trotzky. 
Ex-Pacifist!  Yes,  my  dear  Wells,  if  you  will  but 
follow  the  laws  of  action  and  reaction,  you  will  find 
that  Pacifism  and  the  proclamation  of  International 
Brotherhood  inevitably  call  forth  a  response  of 
militarism.  You  indicate  some  sympathetic  admira- 
tion for  the  spirit  and  the  equipment  of  the  army 
which  the  ex-Pacifist  Trotzky  has  raised.  They  are 
to  be  employed,  among  other  things,  in  undermining 
the  security  of  the  British  Empire.  Of  course  you 
give  them  a  passing  nod  of  recognition. 

Zorin,  another  of  the  Bolshevist  Communist 
leaders,  engages  your  affection  and  admiration.  He 
met,  you  tell  us,  with  brutal  incivility  when  applying 
for  a  job  as  a  packer  in  a  big  dry  goods  store  in 
New  York.  He  therefore  set  himself  to  wreck 
what  remained  of  social  order  in  Russia.  It  seems 
to  be  an  ill-founded  and  insuflicient  motive,  some- 
thing akin  to  the  motive  of  the  boy  who  stoned  a 
flock  of  goslings  because  some  days  before  a  gander 
had  pecked  his  leg.  Doubtless  you  will  argue  that 
in  the  urgent  necessity  to  destroy  our  present  civilisa- 
tion, the  sins  of  the  ganders  in  New  York  must  be 
visited  upon  the  goslings  in  Russia. 


Mr.  Wells  Gets  Further  Entangled    51 

But  Zorin  established  a  still  stronger  title  to  your 
friendship  and  esteem.  You  did  your  best,  you  say, 
to  find  out  from  Zenovieff  and  Zorin  what  they 
thought  they  were  doing  at  the  Baku  conference. 
You  suppose  they  "had  a  vague  idea  of  hitting  back 
at  the  British  Government."  Naturally,  you  declare 
you  have  a  real  friendship  for  Comrade  Zorin.  Any 
man  who  hits  at  your  own  Government  and  your 
own  country  is  a  man  whom  you  take  to  your  heart. 
Throughout  this  third  paper  you  condemn  and  ex- 
pose the  vicious  Marxian  principles  upon  which 
these  men  are  governing  Russia.  But  you  will 
heartily  and  freely  forgive  them  for  all  the  conse- 
quent misery  and  starvation  and  ruin  they  have 
brought  upon  their  country,  in  consideration  of  their 
lofty  determination  to  spread  these  same  doctrines 
throughout  the  British  Empire,  and  bring  your  own 
country  to  the  same  misery,  starvation  and  ruin. 
That,  I  submit  to  you,  my  dear  Wells,  is  a  fair  sum- 
mary of  your  general  political  argument.  It  unifies 
the  inconsistencies  which  all  these  papers  of  yours 
contain  into  the  consistency  of  a  sustained  effort  on 
your  part  to  vilify  your  own  country  and  to  aid  and 
extol  the  Russian  revolutionists,  who  avowedly  are 
seeking  to  break  into  pieces  the  British  Empire. 

Unless  you  express  a  wish  that  I  shall  examine 
your  third  paper  in  greater  detail,  I  shall  conclude 

that  you  are  satisfied  with  the  remarks  that  I  have 


52  My  Dear  Wells 

already  made  upon  it.  I  must  not  forget  my  promise 
to  let  you  off  easily,  so  far  as  my  stern  sense  of  the 
duty  I  owe  you  will  allow  me. 

In  my  last  letter  I  made  another  promise.  I 
rashly  said  I  would  try  to  unravel  the  tangled  rela- 
tions of  Marxian  principles  with  your  own  political 
creed.  This,  I  frankly  confess,  I  am  unable  to  do; 
for  I  cannot  get  any  clear  and  consequent  knowl- 
edge of  what  your  political  creed  is.  I  shall  have 
to  throw  myself  upon  your  indulgence,  and  ask  you 
to  be  kind  enough  to  explain  exactly  what  are  its 
guiding  principles,  and  how  you  propose  to  apply 
them  in  a  practical,  intelligible  way  to  the  present 
troubles  and  disorders  of  the  world. 

You  unreservedly  condemn  and  ridicule  the  car- 
dinal Marxian  doctrines.  You  tell  us  that  although 
Marxian  Communism  is  stupidly,  blindly  wrong  and 
mischievous,  yet  you  have  an  admiration  and  friend- 
ship for  the  men  who  have  imposed  it  upon  the 
Russian  people  to  the  infinite  misery  and  impoverish- 
ment of  the  land.  Further,  you  obviously  regard  the 
British  Empire  as  a  monstrous  imposture,  and  you 
see  in  its  prolonged  existence  the  one  great  obstacle 
to  the  realisation  of  your  International  theories  and 
designs. 

But  these  are  negative  doctrines.  I  suppose  you 
would  call  yourself  a  Socialist  and  a  revolutionary. 
But,  my  dear  Wells,  there  are  so  many  different 


Mr.  Wells  Gets  Further  Entangled'  53 

sorts  of  Socialists,  and  so  many  different  sorts  of 
revolutionaries.  Apparently,  their  only  point  of 
agreement  is  that  the  present  social  order  must  be 
destroyed,  and  a  new  civilisation  built  upon  prin- 
ciples utterly  different  from  those  which  have  hith- 
erto regulated  the  conduct  and  actions  of  mankind. 

When  I  was  a  boy,  there  were  various  religious 
sects  in  the  provincial  town  of  some  twenty  thousand 
inhabitants  where  I  lived.  Their  spiritual  guides 
and  elders  disputed  interminably  about  the  doctrines 
of  justification,  sanctification,  predestination,  and 
other  essential,  but  entirely  obscure  and  transcenden- 
tal articles  of  faith.  I  remember  that  the  Particular 
Baptists,  an  extremely  small  and  exclusive  sect, 
prided  themselves  upon  being  God's  own  elect. 
This  enabled  them  to  indulge  in  constant  theological 
discussion  and  occasional  moral  lapses. 

It  seems  that  the  varieties  and  vagaries  of  theo- 
logical doctrine,  which  afforded  so  much  opportunity 
for  earnest  debate  to  our  grandfathers,  are  in  this 
generation  replaced  by  the  varieties  and  vagaries 
of  Socialist  doctrine.  I  was  awed  and  impressed 
by  the  mysteries  of  justification  and  predestination. 
I  could  not  understand  them,  and  gave  up  all  at- 
tempts to  bring  them  into  relation  with  the  realities 
of  the  world  in  which  I  was  living.  I  am  not  awed 
and  not  impressed  by  the  varied  and  contradictory 
doctrines  of  Socialism.    But,  equally,  I  cannot  bring 


54  My  Dear  Wells 

them  into  relation  v/ith  the  realities  of  the  world 
in  which  I  am  living.  They  offer  to  me  no  better 
guidance  in  the  conduct  and  regulation  of  the  world's 
practical  affairs  than  my  old  puzzles  "Justification" 
and  "Predestination." 

In  consideration  of  the  trouble  I  am  taking  to 
put  you  right,  my  dear  Wells,  I  hope  you  will  take 
the  pains  to  relieve  my  bewilderment  when  I  try  to 
understand  your  own  political  principles  and  to  put 
them  into  practical  relation  with  the  facts  and 
realities  of  our  disordered  world.  Give  us  some 
intelligible  statement  of  the  socialistic  creed  that  will 
transform  human  nature,  and  will  therefore  be  work- 
able in  this  actual  world  in  which  we  live. 

I  am  quite  sure  that  in  your  voluminous  writings 
you  have  already  formulated  one,  or  perhaps  fifty, 
of  such  paper  schemes  for  the  regeneration  of 
mankind  by  Socialistic  International  Government. 
Alas !  my  dear  Wells,  you  formulated  a  paper 
scheme  for  the  international  government  of  Mid- 
Africa.  Whatever  its  merits,  it  had  the  rather 
serious  drawback  that  any  attempt  to  work  it  would 
have  thrown  the  whole  continent  into  confusion. 
However,  I  will  not  dwell  any  further  upon  your 
indiscretions.  You  are  relying  upon  my  promise  to 
let  you  off  easy. 

There  are  wicked  men  in  the  world,  my  dear 
Wells,  who  won't  let  your  theories  work.  That  is 
the  sole  bar  to  your  success  as  a  social  philosopher. 


Mr.  Wells  Gets  Further  Entangled    ^^ 

Why  not  frustrate  their  malice  and  get  a  new  set  of 
theories? 

Adieu,  till  our  next  meeting. 

Henry  Arthur  Jones. 

2nd  December,  1920. 


LETTER  SEVEN. 

MR.  WELLS,  THE  SAILORMAN,  AND 
THE  STOLEN  TEAPOT. 

My  Dear  Wells, — 

In  a  former  letter  I  found  it  convenient  to  define 
our  respective  relations  to  readers  and  thinkers  in 
America  and  England.  With  a  generosity  that  I 
hope  you  appreciate,  I  concede  that  you  should  be 
allowed  to  think  for  all  who  are  unable  to  think  for 
themselves.  I  do  not  doubt  that,  even  after  these 
papers  of  yours  on  "Russia  in  the  Shadow,"  you 
will  still  be  able  to  command  and  preserve  the  re- 
spect and  admiration  of  this  very  numerous  body. 
For  myself  I  begged,  what  I  am  sure  you  will  con- 
sider a  less  enviable  privilege,  that  of  thinking  with 
those  who  are  able  to  think  for  themselves. 

Addressing  myself  exclusively  to  members  of  this 
clique,  I  will  say  that  these  Russian  papers  of  yours, 
when  carefully  read,  giving  due  weight  to  all  your 
statements,  admissions,  suppressions,  apologies,  ex- 
tenuations, insinuations,  confusions  and  contradic- 
tions— drawing  from  your  own  words  their  inevit- 
able deductions  and  consequences — I  will  say  that 
these  papers  of  yours  contain  the  most  formidable 

56 


Mr.  Wells  and  the  Sailorman       57 

and  damning  indictment  of  Bolshevist  Government 
that  their  strongest  opponent  could  frame,  or  their 
most  hapless  victim  could  desire. 

Your  fourth  article  ("New  York  Sunday  Times," 
November  28,  1920)  is  called  "Creative  Effort  in 
Russia."  Your  first  three  papers  pictured  very  vividly 
the  widely  spread  misery,  destitution,  starvation  and 
aimless  despair  that  prevail  throughout  the  land. 
Being  obsessed  with  your  theory  that  International 
Socialistic  Government  must  at  all  costs  be  enforced 
upon  the  world,  and  the  Bolshevist  Government 
being  the  only  one  that  has  yet  attempted  to  carry 
your  theory  into  practice,  you  are  bound  to  find 
some  show  of  evidence  that  the  Bolshevist  Govern- 
ment is  not  responsible  for  the  continued  and  pro- 
gressive misery  and  decay  of  Russia.  So  you  fasten 
the  blame  upon  any  fictitious  or  quite  secondary 
causes  that  will  serve  your  purpose;  and,  chiefly, 
you  insinuate  that  the  British  and  French  Govern- 
ments are  the  malignant  blunderers  who  are  mainly 
accountable  for  the  worst  miseries  and  disasters  that 
have  fallen  upon  Russia. 

You  are  also  bound  to  find  some  show  of  evidence 
that  this  universal  collapse  and  ruin  is  compensated 
by  such  a  display  of  "creative  effort"  as  to  prove 
that  Bolshevist  Government  is  a  hopeful  and  de- 
sirable experiment  for  mankind.  Here  you  make 
out  a  very  bad  case  indeed.  You  called  your  second 
paper  "Drift  and  Salvage."     In  it  you  showed  that 


58  My  Dear  Wells 

while  there  was  a  tremendous  amount  of  "Drift," 
there  was  an  infinitesimal  amount  of  "Salvage."  In 
this  fourth  paper,  you  equally  show  that  the  very 
small  quantity  and  the  very  poor  quality  of  the 
"Creative  Effort"  in  Russia  is  in  itself  a  severe  con- 
demnation of  the  enormous  Destructive  Effort  that 
preceded  and  has  accompanied  it. 

Let  us  examine  your  account  of  this  "Creative 
Effort."  The  first  thing  that  strikes  us  is  the  meagre- 
ness  and  poverty  of  your  items.  Is  that  all  the  credit 
of  constructive  foresight  and  promised  stability  and 
security  that  you  can  place  against  the  incalculable 
deficit  of  actual  famine,  misery,  disease  and  helpless 
apathy  and  despair?  You  tell  us  that  this  helpless 
apathy  and  despair,  this  feeling  of  irreparable  col- 
lapse and  ruin,  possesses  the  Russian  people,  and  yet 
you  try  to  awaken  our  admiration  for  the  Bolshevist 
rulers,  because,  in  spite  of  their  governing  Russia 
on  what  you  explain  are  false  and  vicious  Marxian 
principles,  they  are  "the  only  body  of  people  in  this 
vast  spectacle  of  Russian  ruin  with  a  common  faith" 
— in  these  false  principles — "and  a  common  spirit" 
— of  blind,  reckless  fanaticism.  My  dear  Wells! 
O,  my  dear  Wells  !  O,  my  ultra-preposterous  Wells  1 
O,  my  exceedingly  befuddled  and  bemuddled  Wells  1 
O,  my  obstinately  auto-obfuscated  Wells! 

Again,  I  have  marked  a  long  succession  of  pas- 
sages in  your  fourth  article  that  invite,  nay  clamour 
for  exposure,  or  challenge,  or  indignant  reproof, 


Mr.  Wells  and  the  Sailorman       59 

or  a  smart  tap  with  the  jester's  bauble.  But  I  must 
remember  that  the  good,  patient  public  has  other 
Interests  In  life  besides  the  ventilation  of  your 
theories.  Also,  I  must  not  forget  my  promise  to  let 
you  off  easily — so  far  as  you  do  not  trespass  too 
much  on  my  kindly  forbearance. 

You  give  us  several  Illustrations  of  the  kind  of 
"Creative  Effort"  that  Is  be-Ing  organised  in  Russia. 
You  tell  us  that  there  are  Bolshevik!  so  stupid  that 
they  would  stop  the  teaching  of  chemistry  in  schools 
until  they  were  assured  that  It  was  "proletarian" 
chemistry.  You  say  that  Hebrew  studies  have  been 
suppressed  because  they  are  "reactionary."  Ahl 
Here  Is  a  clue — 

Great  prophets  and  poets  and  teachers  of  Israel, 
you  who  for  centuries  have  shown  mankind  the  way 
of  life,  and  kept  In  bounds  the  turbulent  seas  of 
human  savagery  and  passion  and  lust;  you  who  have 
set  up  the  everlasting  signals  and  landmarks  that 
guide  the  wayward  steps  of  our  race,  and  have  in- 
flamed the  peoples  with  the  thirst  for  righteousness, 
and  have  fed  the  spiritual  sources  of  the  world's 
civilisation,  and  have  written  your  golden  precepts 
upon  the  hearts  of  all  them  that  have  loved  and 
sacrificed  themselves  for  their  brother  men — Moses, 
David,  Solomon,  Isaiah,  Job,  Jesus  the  son  of 
Sirach,  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  and  all  you  kindred 
great  consultant  oracles  and  counselors  of  the  nations 
— fitly,  most  fitly,  and  with  surest  Instinct,  O  obsolete 


6o  My  Dear  Wells 

dead  reactionary  ones,  have  the  Bolshevist  rulers 
decreed  that  you  shall  have  no  voice  or  sway  in  their 
pauper  pandemonium  commonwealth ! 

We  get  an  impression  that  whatever  "Creative 
Effort"  there  may  be  in  Russia,  it  must  be  singularly 
inept  or  misdirected,  when  you  relate,  with  a  bitter 
sense  of  ill-usage,  that  about  eighty  hours  of  your 
life  were  "consumed  in  travelling,  telephoning  and 
waiting  about  in  order  to  talk  for  about  an  hour 
and  a  half  with  Lenin."  Eighty  hours  1  Why,  my 
dear  Wells,  that  must  have  been  approximately  half 
the  time  you  had  at  your  disposal  for  the  purpose 
of  thoroughly  investigating  and  studying  the  condi- 
tion of  the  Russian  people  and  the  effects  of  Bol- 
shevist Government.  Eighty  hours  spent  to  obtain 
an  hour  and  a  half's  talk  with  Lenin!  Take  my 
word  for  it,  my  dear  Wells,  it  was  time  very  badly 
spent.  Now  if  you  will  but  come  and  have  an  hour 
and  a  half's  talk  with  me,  I  promise  you  that  either 
the  one  or  the  other  of  us  shall  derive  some  benefit 
from  it. 

The  impression  of  the  total  absence  of  any 
"Creative  Effort  in  Russia"  that  works  toward  the 
comfort  and  convenience  of  the  daily  lives  of  the 
people,  is  still  further  deepened  by  the  account  you 
give  us  of  your  journey  and  visit  to  Moscow.  In 
a  graphic  narrativ^e  you  describe  how  you  were 
placed  in  charge  of  a  sailorman,  who  v/as  topograph- 
ically ignorant  of  where  he  was  taking  you,  and 


Mr.  Wells  and  the  Sailorman       6l 

who  carried  about  a  stolen  silver  teapot  in  lieu  of  a 
mariner's  compass  to  steer  your  wanderings.  Now 
I  see  in  that  story  a  profound  piece  of  instructive 
allegory,  mercifully  vouchsafed  to  you  by  Providence 
to  warn  you  off  your  International  theories.  The 
sailorman  aptly  symbolises  an  incompetent,  ignorant 
and  dishonest  crew  of  politicians  who  have  forsaken 
their  useful  occupations  to  take  charge  of  bewildered 
humanity  (yourself)  and  to  guide  it  through  a 
strange  city  (the  present  world  disorder)  about 
whose  topography  they  know  nothing,  and  this  with 
no  better  instrument  for  directing  themselves  and 
the  mass  of  bewildered  humanity  they  have  taken 
under  their  charge,  than  the  false  mariner's  compass 
of  a  stolen  silver  teapot.  (The  stolen  teapot  clearly 
signifies  that  taking  other  people's  property  is  the 
only  guide  to  their  confused  movements.) 

Why,  my  dear  Wells,  the  allegory  is  perfect.  Lay 
it  to  heart,  I  beseech  you,  as  the  threatening  symbol 
and  foreshadow  of  what  will  befall  us  under  Inter- 
national Government. 

After  much  devious  and  futile  wandering,  you 
were  moved  to  swear  roundly  at  the  sailorman.  Yes, 
that  is  what  we  shall  all  be  doing,  when  we  find  our- 
selves under  the  direction  of  the  International  sailor- 
man who  has  stolen  our  best  silver  teapot.  Oh,  the 
language  we  shall  use  at  him ! 

You  give  much  space  in  this  fourth  article  to  the 
"Creative   Effort"   that  you   saw   in   operation   in 


62  My  Dear  Wells 

Russian  schools.  You  visited  two  of  them.  You 
formed  a  very  bad  opinion  of  the  first.  You  could 
witness  no  teaching,  and  the  behaviour  of  the 
youngsters  indicated  a  low  standard  of  discipline. 
Your  guide  questioned  the  children  upon  the  subject 
of  English  literature  and  the  writers  they  liked  most. 
One  name  dominated  all  others — your  own.  You 
tell  us  that  amongst  these  badly-behaved,  ill-con- 
ducted little  scholars  you  towered  like  a  literary 
colossus,  and  that  Milton,  Dickens,  and  Shake- 
speare ran  about  intermittently  between  your  feet. 
No  fact  that  you  have  related,  my  dear  Wells,  shows 
more  clearly  the  appalling  perversion  and  confusion 
of  ideas  that  reign  in  Russia.  However,  you  mod- 
estly deprecated  the  flattering  estimate  that  these 
feeble,  immature  intellects  had  formed  of  your  po- 
sition in  English  literature.  You  even  resented  that 
the  other  authors — amongst  them,  Shakespeare — 
were  not  given  a  chance  to  train  the  children's  minds. 
But,  my  dear  Wells,  do  you  know  that  this  Shake- 
speare is  a  rank,  incorrigible,  irreclaimable  patriot, 
as  pestilent  a  patriot  as  Pitt  or  Washington  or 
Lincoln — believe  me,  a  villainous  and  most  robus- 
tious and  unabashed  subverter  of  all  your  cherished 
theories?  But  perhaps  you  haven't  read  him.  Do 
give  him  a  spare  hour  when  you  can  find  the  time. 
Archibald  Spofforth  has  just  suggested  to  me  that 
you  would  do  well  to  take  Shakespeare  away  to  a 


Mr.  Wells  and  the  Sailorman       63 

quiet  desert  island,  and  study  him  carefully  for  a 
year. 

But  this  Shakespeare,  whom  you  seem  to  have 
heard  about  as  an  excellent  author  for  the  young — 
why,  my  dear  Wells,  if  you  once  allow  this  man's 
political  philosophy  to  get  a  hearing,  if  you  once 
let  him  impregnate  the  young  with  his  pernicious 
principles  of  government  and  political  and  social 
order,  Internationalism  won't  stand  the  tenth  part 
of  a  sporting  chance  against  him.  I  tell  you  this, 
so  that  you  may  take  the  necessary  steps  to  prevent 
his  influence  from  spreading.  In  your  third  article, 
-pour  encoiirager  les  autres,  the  millions  of  the  un- 
employed who  are  dissatisfied,  you  confess  to  a 
longing  as  a  young  man  to  burn  down  your  employ- 
er's shop.*  Why  not  do  a  more  necessary  piece  of 
incendiarism,  and  clear  a  free  course  for  Interna- 
tionalism to  have  its  way  and  work  its  will  in  the 
world?  Why  not  burn  down  Stratford-on-Avon 
Church,  and  rid  the  world  of  what  remains  of  this 
arch  enemy  of  human  progress  as  set  forth  in  the 
doctrines  and  methods  of  Jack  Cade?  I  make  this 
suggestion,  because  it  falls  in  with  your  own  impulse 
to  burn  down  your  employer's  shop  as  a  practical 
way  of  removing  social  grievances. 

And  it  is  this  same  Shakespeare  who,  whenever 

•"/  ivould  have  set  fire  to  that  place  {his  employer's  shop)  if  I 
had  not  been  convinced  it  ivas  overinsured." — H.  G.  Wells,  "Rus- 
sia in  the  Shadous,"  p.  85. 


64  My  Dear  Wells 

he  touches  your  social  and  political  theories,  shrivels 
them  to  tinder — it  is  this  same  Shal<:espeare  whom 
you  recommend  as  a  teacher  in  Bolshevist  schools, 
as  an  instructor  of  Bolshevist  children ! 

My  dear  Wells,  my  unapproachable  Wells,  into 
what  a  sub-nethermost  pit,  into  what  a  Serbonian 
bog  of  disconglutinated  illogicality  have  you  fallen, 
and  do  there  flounder,  and  cannot  clear  its  mud 
from  your  eyes ! 

You  visited  these  two  Russian  schools.  In  the 
first,  where  there  was  no  evidence  of  teaching,  and 
where  the  children  seemed  to  spend  all  their  time 
in  reading  your  books,  there  was  a  low  standard  of 
discipline.  I  make  no  comment.  I  draw  no  infer- 
ence. Doubtless  there  are  schools  where  your  books 
and  social  philosophy  do  not  form  the  complete 
curriculum,  and  where  yet  the  behaviour  of  the 
children  is  not  all  that  could  be  desired. 

You  visited  a  second  school.  You  tested  the 
vogue  of  H.  G.  Wells  among  its  scholars.  None  of 
them  had  ever  heard  of  him.  The  school  library 
contained  none  of  his  books.  This  you  tell  us  was 
a  much  better  school  than  the  one  you  had  first 
visited.  The  discipline  of  the  children  was  better, 
and  you  saw  some  excellent  teaching  in  progress. 
Again  I  make  no  comment.  I  draw  no  inference. 
I  merely  relate  the  facts  as  you  state  them.  I  am 
the  last  man  to  say  that  a  knowledge  of  your  writings 
is  the  only  cause  of  bad  behaviour  and  lack  of  dis- 


Mr.  Wells  and  the  Sailorman       65 

cipllne  in  children.  Yet  a  close  study  of  your  ac- 
count of  your  visits  to  these  two  Russian  schools, 
gives  us  some  reason  to  fear  that  this  may  be  the 
case.  The  matter  needs  further  examination. 
Meantime  I  will  give  you  the  benefit  of  the  doubt. 

You  afterwards  discovered  that  in  the  first  school 
your  friend  Chukovsky  had  been  playing  a  trick 
upon  you  by  arranging  for  you  a  spurious  temporary 
popularity  among  its  feeble,  immature  intellects. 
That  was  not  what  you  desired.  You  rightly  ad- 
minister a  gentle  reproof  to  Chukovsky  for  not 
appreciating  "the  real  gravity  of  the  business  you 
had  in  hand."  Chukovsky  evidently  thought  you 
were  out  for  a  lark.  I  hope  Chukovsky  now  under- 
stands that  you  wish  your  social  philosophy  to  be 
taken  seriously. 

You  generalise,  most  rashly  I  should  say,  from 
the  two  schools  you  visited  that  the  quality  of 
teaching  has  risen  since  the  Czarist  regime,  and  you 
try  to  make  out  a  good  case  for  the  educational 
"Creative  Effort"  in  Russia.  Alas,  my  dear  Wells, 
you  have  to  admit  that  great  numbers  of  the  children 
cannot  be  got  to  school  at  all,  and  are  engaged  in 
secret  illicit  trading  upon  the  streets.  The  adults 
are  forbidden  to  buy  and  sell,  and  consequently  this 
vast  amount  of  secret  illicit  trading  has  to  be  done, 
and  is  done  by  the  Russian  children.  Further,  you 
give  us  horrible  accounts  of  widely  spread  sexual 
immorality  among  the   young.      Well,   what  could 


66  My  Dear  Wells 

you  expect?  The  children  are  taken  from  the  care 
of  their  parents  and  are  being,  as  you  term  it,  "insti- 
tutionalised"— dreadful  word  and  dreary  process 
and  dreary,  abominable  destiny  for  the  children. 
Would  you  like  your  own  children  to  be  "institution- 
alised"? 

Taken  altogether,  your  fourth  paper  gives  us  the 
impression  that  there  is  very  little  "Creative  Effort 
in  Russia";  that  most  of  what  there  is,  is  actively 
mischievous,  and  that  none,  or  scarcely  any  of  it, 
is  directed  toward  securing  the  daily  comfort  and 
happiness  of  the  people.  The  "Creative  Effort  in 
Russia"  appears  to  be  of  the  same  kind  as  Jack 
Cade's. 

We  learn  from  another  visitor  to  Russia  of  a 
single  "Creative  Effort"  on  the  part  of  Mrs. 
Trotzky.  The  abolition  of  buying  and  selling  has 
naturally  led  to  this  enormous  amount  of  secret 
illicit  trading,  which,  as  you  tell  us,  finds  sweet  and 
salutary  employment  for  the  Russian  children.  I 
think  you  may  use  this  fact  as  a  striking  illustration 
of  an  initial  benefit  conferred  upon  society  by  the 
abolition  of  private  property. 

But,  in  addition  to  this  vast  development  of 
private  Illicit  trading,  there  is  also  a  public  illicit 
trading  rendezvous,  appropriately  called  the 
"Thieves'  Market,"  where  the  general  commercial 
transactions  and  activities  of  Moscow  are  carried 
on.    Being  unable  to  eradicate  the  criminal  tendency 


Mr.  Wells  and  the  Sailorman       67 

of  human  nature  to  buy  and  sell,  and  yet  being 
laudably  determined  to  uphold  the  principles  of 
Bolshevism,  the  Government  raids  the  Thieves' 
Market  at  intervals,  and  arrests  both  buyers  and 
sellers. 

Now  whether  from  private  necessity  or  from 
conviction  that  it  is  to  the  public  advantage  that 
people  who  have  goods  to  sell  should  be  allowed  to 
sell  them,  and  people  who  are  in  want  of  goods 
should  be  allowed  to  buy  them — inspired  by  one  of 
these  two  motives,  Mrs.  Trotzky  went  incognito 
to  the  Thieves'  Market  to  purchase  some  necessity 
or  luxury  of  life.  She  was  arrested  by  the  Govern- 
ment raiders,  and  being  unable  to  prove  her  identity, 
or  to  telephone  her  plight  to  the  immaculate 
Trotzky,  she  was  locked  up  in  prison  for  a  night. 
That  is  how  they  punish  genuine  creative  effort  in 
Russia.  For  I  maintain,  my  dear  Wells,  that  Mrs. 
Trotzky  was  engaged  in  a  genuine,  if  unconscious, 
effort  to  restore  the  social  order  that  is  involved 
in,  and  is  inseparable  from,  commercial  intercourse. 
You,  of  course,  maintain  the  contrary. 

So  much,  then,  for  your  fourth  paper  on  "Creative 

Effort  in  Russia." 

***** 

When  I  come  to  your  fifth  article,  "The  Dreamer 
in  the  Kremlin,"  I  am  overwhelmed  by  the  oppor- 
tunities it  offers  to  me  for  comment.  Judging  from 
your  amiable  but  silent  reception  of  such  comment 


68  My  Dear  Wells 

and  admonition  as  I  have  already  proffered  to  you 
on  the  first  four  articles,  and  relying,  as  indeed  you 
may,  upon  my  repeated  promise  to  treat  you  gently 
and  mercifully,  I  am  sure  you  would  wish  me  to 
subject  this  fifth  article  to  a  strict  and  exhaustive 
analysis.  You  are  looking  for  it,  anxiously  waiting 
for  it,  and  I  will  not  disappoint  you.  But,  for  the  mo- 
ment, I  must  beg  you  to  show  me  some  of  the  kindly 
forbearance  that  I  have  shown  to  you  throughout 
these  letters.  I  promise  you  that  I  will  deal  with  this 
fifth  article  as  soon  as  I  can  find  the  leisure  and 
opportunity  to  do  justice  to  it.  For  the  present, 
you  must  exercise  patience — tedious  and  exasperat- 
ing as  the  delay  may  seem  to  you. 

One  comment,  however,  I  am  forced  to  make. 
This  "Dreamer  in  the  Kremlin,"  to  whom  you  have 
alluded  as  the  "beloved  Lenin,"  *  is  responsible  for 
innumerable  savageries  and  cruelties  upon  this  most 
miserable,  starving  and  bewildered  Russian  people. 
Four  thousand  of  his  hapless  countrymen  were  re- 
cently shot  down  in  one  month  without  a  trial.  What 
of  that?  What  of  all  the  other  countless  thousands 
of  tortures  and  murders?  He  is  an  enemy  of 
your  country.  He  has  lately  sent  to  England 
stolen  gold  to  bribe  our  workingmen  to  mad 
revolution,  and  to  corrupt  the  British  Navy, 
the  ultimate  defence  of  that  civilisation  which,  im- 

*  "Lenin,  beloved  leader  of  all  that  is  energetic  in  Russia   tO' 
day,"  "Russia  in  the  Shadows,"  p.  88. 


Mr.  Wells  and  the  Sailorman       69 

perfect,  lumbering,  and  open  in  many  respects  to 
wide  improvement  as  we  all  admit,  does  yet  shelter 
you  in  your  persistent  attacks  upon  it;  provides  you 
with  a  motor  car  and  cosy  dividends,  and  also,  as  I 
entreat  you  to  remember,  does  also  shelter  and 
protect  not  only  yourself,  but  hundreds  of  millions 
on  this  earth,  from  such  misery,  anarchy,  despair 
and  starvation  as  prevail  in  Russia.  He  is  an  enemy 
of  your  country.  Naturally  you  call  him  the  "be- 
loved Lenin." 

While  your  articles  on  "Russia  in  the  Shadow" 
have  been  making  their  weekly  appearances,  I  have 
had  to  listen  to  much  ill-natured  and  contemptuous 
criticism  upon  them  from  Archibald  Spofforth.  All 
through  I  have  taken  your  part  against  him,  so  far 
as  you  gave  me  the  chance  of  saying  a  good  word 
for  you.  I  have  constantly  said  to  Spofforth, 
"Watch  them  carefully!  Wells  has  got  something 
up  his  sleeve.  Wells  will  make  some  great  unex- 
pected coup  before  he  has  finished." 

I  argued  with  Spofforth  something  in  this  strain: 
"Wells  may  be  a  very  poor  and  confused  social 
philosopher,  but  he  is  a  confirmed  and  determined 
Socialist."  To  this  Spofforth  only  emitted  one  of 
his  unmannerly  grunts.  I  grew  a  little  heated  on 
your  behalf.  "Wells,"  I  continued  severely,  "is 
always  pointing  out  the  foolish  and  criminal  waste 
that  goes  on  in  our  present  social  economy.  Now," 
I  said,  fixing  Spofforth  with  a  triumphant  glance  and 


70  My  Dear  Wells 

nod,  "Wells  knows  that  paper  is  very  scarce  and 
dear.  He  knows  that  the  newspaper  proprietors 
have  to  guard  every  inch  of  space.  Do  you 
mean  to  tell  me  that  Wells  would  allow  tons  (per- 
haps this  was  an  exaggeration)  of  valuable  paper 
to  be  used  in  advertising  him  as  the  greatest  living 
English  writer,  unless  he  had  got  something  good 
to  say?  Wells  is  too  good  a  Socialist,  too  severe 
an  economist,  and  too  sensible  a  man,  to  allow  all 
that  valuable  paper  to  be  used  in  advertising  him, 
without  doing  something  to  justify  the  expense. 
Wait  and  see,"  I  said.  "Wells  is  going  to  spring 
upon  us  some  surprise ;  he  is  going  to  show  us  what 
the  greatest  living  English  writer  can  do  when  he 
gets  a  theme  that  he  knows  how  to  handle." 

I  was  so  confident  in  your  powers,  my  dear  Wells, 
that  I  eagerly  accepted  the  bet  Spofforth  offered  of 
a  new  shiny  silk  top  hat — I  forgot  for  the  moment 
that  shiny  top  hats  will  be  too  conspicuous  in  your 
new  social  order — Spofforth  offered  to  bet  one  that 
you  wouldn't  make  any  literary  coup  that  would 
justify  your  editors  in  wasting  all  that  paper.  My 
dear  Wells,  I've  lost  my  betl  I  hope  you  will  allow 
that  a  slight  feeling  of  grievance  against  you  in  this 
matter  is  not  unnatural  on  my  part. 

Of  course,  I  couldn't  exactly  tell  what  sort  of  a 
coup  you  were  going  to  make.  I  had  some  ex- 
pectancy that  before  you  ended  these  papers  you 
would  announce  that,  having  written  so  much  about 


Mr.  Wells  and  the  Sailorman       71 

how  the  world  should  be  governed,  you  had  per- 
suaded Lenin  to  enjoy  a  short  vacation,  while  you 
took,  his  place  for  a  fortnight,  and  showed  us  in 
a  practical,  feasible,  workable  way  how  the  trick  is 
to  be  done.  You  ought  really  to  take  the  first 
fortnight  you  can  spare,  put  yourself  at  the  head  of 
affairs  in  one  of  the  distracted  countries  and  show 
what  a  happy  place  you  can  make  of  it,  when  you 
govern  it  instead  of  "think"  for  it.  Whatever  lucky 
country  you  choose  to  govern,  I  think  you  should 
allow  yourself  a  full  fortnight  to  get  things  straight 
— the  same  time  that  you  took  for  your  very  com- 
prehensive  review  of   Russian  conditions. 

To  conclude.  If,  my  dear  Wells,  I  seem  at  times 
to  be  trifling  with  these  deadly  serious  questions  in 
these  deadly  serious  times,  I  assure  you  that  my  ap- 
parent levity  is  only  on  the  surface.  I  have  the 
deepest  sense  of  their  magnitude  and  import.  But 
how  can  I  deal  with  the  many  inconsistencies  and 
confusions  that  swarm  through  your  articles  and  that 
may  lead  the  unthinking  multitude  into  vain  revolt 
against  eternal  realities  and  eternal  laws — how  can 
I  treat  these  heedless  inconsistencies,  except  to  laugh 
at  you — and  weep  for  them? 

There  is  a  soul  of  goodness  in  things  evil.  Hu- 
manity is  like  a  running  stream.  However  muddy 
and  polluted  it  may  be  in  parts  of  its  course,  it 
cleanses  itself  as  it  flows  along.  We  may  take  heart 
from   these   following   facts.     The  leaders   of  the 


72  My  Dear  Wells 

Russian  Government,  you  say,  are  changing  their 
opinions  on  many  points.  Another  recent  traveller 
brings  us  word  that  scarcely  any  of  their  original 
decrees  and  laws  are  now  enforced,  but  are  allowed 
to  drop  into  disuse  as  they  are  found  to  be  im- 
practicable. Yet  another  observer  tells  us  that  the 
Russian  Army  is  inflamed  by  Patriotism,  and  that 
this  is  really  the  force  that  holds  tTie  people  to- 
gether. And  again,  another  visitor  says  that  vainly 
have  the  people  been  torn  away  from  Religion. 
They  are  crowding  the  churches.  Religion  and 
Patriotism  are  primary  universal  instincts  in  the 
hearts  of  men.  They  often  take  absurd  and  mis- 
chievous forms,  but  they  continue  to  move  the  masses 
of  mankind.  Your  theories  seek  to  abolish  these 
primary  instincts.  That's  one  of  the  reasons  why 
your  theories  won't  work,  my  dear  Wells.  With 
constant  concern  for  you, 

Henry  Arthur  Jones. 
loth  December,  1920. 


LETTER  EIGHT. 

MR.  WELLS  BECOMES  EVEN  MORE 
PREPOSTEROUS. 

My  Dear  Wells, — 

It  grieves  me  to  the  heart  to  find  that  you  are  not 
taking  a  more  vigorously  loquacious  part  in  this  con- 
troversy. The  questions  at  issue  between  you  and 
me  are  of  such  sovereign  importance  to  mankind  that 
I  am  justified  in  expecting  from  you  something  more 
than  this  conspiracy  of  silence  and  self-obliteration. 

I  do  not  forget  that  at  the  beginning  of  our  dis- 
cussion, in  "The  London  Evening  Standard,"  you  so 
far  indulged  my  wish  for  a  response,  as  to  call  me 
a  "liar,"  "an  excited  imbecile,"  "a  silly  ranter,"  a 
"forger,"  with  other  kindred  vivacities  of  dignified 
debate.  That  gave  an  exhilarating  start  to  the 
affair.  It  led  me  to  expect  great  things  from  you. 
"Here's  a  man  of  mettle !"  I  said.  "Here's  a  foe- 
man  worthy  of  my  steel !"  But  in  the  effort  of 
administering  this  resounding  chastisement  to  me, 
you  seem  to  have  exhausted  your  capacity  for  further 
argument.  Like  Homer,  you  ceased.  You  said  it 
was  impossible  to  argue  with  a  man  who  did  not 

73 


74  My  Dear  Wells 

understand  the  use  of  inverted  commas.  Rather 
than  you  should  be  robbed  of  whatever  benefit  you 
might  gain  from  a  further  examination  of  your 
theories  and  whimsies,  I  offered  to  carry  on  the 
controversy  all  alone,  and  to  find  arguments  for  us 
both.     I  hope  I  have  not  disappointed  you. 

I  still  feel  equal  to  the  task  of  continuing  the  dis- 
cussion all  alone — by  my  solitary  pen — and  if  you 
so  decide,  you  shall  not  find  me  lacking,  either  in 
matter  or  in  determination  to  set  it  before  the  public. 
But  am  I  not  selfishly  taking  more  than  my  fair  share 
of  this  causerie,  like  some  rude  fellow  at  a  dinner 
table  who  absorbs  all  the  conversation  while  another 
guest  is  eagerly  waiting  a  chance  to  get  his  say? 
Come,  my  dear  Wells,  I  am  sure  you  must  be  burst- 
ing to  unpack  yourself,  if  not  of  any  illuminating 
comment,  yet,  at  least,  of  a  thousand  robust  and 
crashing  fulminations,  such  as  you  hurled  at  the 
head  of  the  Moscow  sailorman.  Yet  you  subdue 
yourself  to  a  most  nugatory  quiescence.  I  appreciate 
this  sober  self-abnegation  on  your  part,  but  I  feel 
that  I  ought  not  to  take  advantage  of  it.  Aren't 
you  keeping  it  up  too  long?  Don't  you  owe  it  to 
the  large  public  who  allow  you  to  do  their  thinking 
for  them. — half  of  Europe,  as  your  inspired  eulogist 
claims,  and  at  least  several  hundreds  of  Americans — 
don't  you  owe  it  to  them  to  emerge  from  your  retire- 
ment, vault  into  the  arena,   triumphantly  expound 


Becomes  Even  More  Preposterous    75 

yourself,  mercilessly  confound  me,  and  give  me  that 
public  punishment  which  I  so  richly  deserve? 

Even  if  you  were  merely  to  repeat  the  epithets 
that  I  have  quoted  above,  adding  perhaps  your  sus- 
picions that  I  attempted  to  poison  your  inspired 
eulogist,  and  crowning  such  irresistible  arguments 
with  the  staggering  accusation  that  I  know  nothing 
about  the  functions  of  inverted  commas — even  if 
you  were  merely  to  spread  yourself  discursively  in 
these  directions,  It  would  at  least  show  that  you  are 
alive  to  the  necessity  of  saying  something  in  reply 
to  me.  I  urge  you  to  take  this  line  of  reply  because 
it  would  suit  your  method  of  controversy,  and  also 
because  it  Is  peculiarly  adapted  to  the  minds  of 
that  large  class  whom  you  are  "thinking  for."  You 
mustn't  lose  your  hold  upon  them. 

Come,  my  dear  Wells,  I  am  quite  willing  to  stand 
aside  while  you  subject  my  arguments  and  conclusions 
to  the  same  analytic  treatment  that  I  have  given  to 
yours.  You  are,  as  I  think,  misleading  great  num- 
bers on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic  In  matters  of  such 
serious  concern  that  the  security,  welfare  and  happi- 
ness of  vast  populations  depend  upon  their  right 
judgement  of  these  matters.  To  the  best  of  'my 
ability  I  have  tried  to  correct  some  of  the  fallacies, 
Inconsistencies  and  confusions  of  thought  that  form 
the  basis  of  your  social  and  political  doctrine,  and 
that  are  mischievously  incorporated  in  these  papers 


76  My  Dear  Wells 

of  yours  on  Russia.  Being  set  before  the  unthink- 
ing multitude  in  your  numerous  editions,  they  may 
multiply  into  active  disorder — so  infectiously  epi- 
demic is  wrong  thinking. 

Come,  my  dear  Wells,  what  have  you  to  say  in 
reply  to  me?  The  public  is  impatiently  waiting  for 
me  to  keep  silence,  and  to  give  you  a  chance  to  make 
yourself  heard.  I  invite  you  to  take  your  fair  share 
of  this  discussion.  You  won't?  You  positively  re- 
fuse? My  dear  Wells,  I  regretfully  accept  the 
situation. 

And  now  you  are  longing  for  me  to  redeem  my 
promise  to  say  something  about  your  fifth  paper, 
"The  Dreamer  in  the  Kremlin."  If  you  are  building 
any  extravagant  hopes  upon  its  receiving  from  me 
that  exhaustive  treatment  which  it  so  fully  deserves, 
I  fear  you  will  be  disappointed.  For  in  the  mean- 
time it  has  received  ("New  York  Sunday  Times," 
December  12,  1920),  from  John  Spargo  an  exami- 
nation so  ample,  penetrating  and  convincing  that  you 
must  be  a  very  unreasonable  man  if  you  still  clamour 
for  any  further  lengthy  discussion  of  it  from  me. 
I  will  thank  Mr.  Spargo  for  dealing  with  "The 
Dreamer  in  the  Kremlin"  so  thoroughly,  so  sin- 
cerely, so  admirably  throughout,  that  I  might  well 
ask  you  to  release  me  from  my  promise  to  deal  with 
it  myself. 

Mr.  Spargo's  paper  is  all  the  more  welcome  as, 
like  yourself,  he  is  a  good  Socialist.    I  intend  to  be 


Becomes  Even  More  Preposterous    77 

a  good  Socialist  myself,  when  all  the  rest  of  you 
good  Socialists  can  agree  among  yourselves  upon 
a  plan  that  is  suited  to  the  facts  and  exigencies  of 
the  world  wherein  we  live — and  if  you  will  also  show 
me  that  plan  in  actual  operation,  even  upon  the 
smallest  scale,  among  the  smallest  community. 

I  really  think  you  ought  to  be  content,  my  dear 
Wells,  with  John  Spargo's  clearly  and  closely 
reasoned  analysis  of  "The  Dreamer  in  the  Kremlin." 
Still,  if  you  insist,  and,  lest  I  should  leave  rankling 
in  your  mind  some  quite  excusable  suspicion  that  I 
am  failing  in  my  obligations  to  you — as,  indeed,  is 
my  own  constant  fear — I  will  humour  your  impor- 
tunity and  make  a  few  remarks  upon  this  fifth  paper 
of  yours. 

John  Spargo  has  most  temperately,  but  ruthlessly 
exposed  the  disingenuities,  the  palliations,  the  sinful 
inconsistencies  and  inconsequences  of  your  blind 
infatuation  for  Bolshevism.  One  of  your  London 
admirers  has  spoken  of  your  "giant  mind."  A  giant 
mind  indeed  it  must  be  that  can  find  room  in  its 
capacious  recesses  for  your  Titanic  and  Titanianic 
delusions  about  Bolshevism.  Now,  my  dear  Wells, 
if  I  have  established  any  claim  upon  your  gratitude, 
will  you  in  return  do  me  the  small  favour  to  read 
over  carefully  John  Spargo's  criticism  of  your  entire 
attitude  toward  Bolshevism  and  its  leaders?  Read 
it  over  again  and  again,  my  dear  Wells.  You  could 
not  employ  your  time  more  profitably. 


78  My  Dear  Wells 

Now,  having  studied  it,  I  will  ask  you  what  are 
the  dominant  impressions  that  it  leaves  upon  you? 
Of  course  you  are  struck  with  the  easy,  masterly  way 
in  which  John  Spargo  blows  into  indiscoverable 
atoms  your  jerry-built  argument  that  the  terrible 
misery  and  ruin  of  Russia  have  been  caused,  not  by 
the  Bolsheviki,  but  by  the  Allied  policy  and  the  col- 
lapse of  Czarism.  You  have  resolved  that  you  will 
never  again  be  so  foolish  and  so  self-deceiving  as  to 
contend  that  Bolshevism  is  not  mainly  guilty  of  this 
crazy  and  tragic  dismemberment  of  the  Russian 
people. 

Then  you  are  struck  with  the  easy  way  in  which 
Spargo  lays  bare  the  inadequacy,  inaccuracy,  poverty 
and  spurious  pretentiousness  of  your  knowledge  of 
Russian  conditions,  gained  chiefly  in  your  week-end 
trip,  as,  with  elastic  precision,  it  has  been  called. 
Next,  you  are  arrested  by  Spargo's  sweeping  ex- 
posure of  the  mischievous  impracticability,  the 
economic  blindness  and  fallacy  of  your  solution  of 
the  Russian  question.  I  will  not  discredit  the 
prowess  of  that  giant  mind  of  yours;  I  will  not  do 
you  so  great  an  injustice,  my  dear  Wells,  as  to  sup- 
pose it  possible  that,  having  read  carefully  Spargo's 
papers,  you  are  not  in  perfect  unison  with  him 
throughout.  Spargo  is  unanswerable.  If  you  don't 
think  so,  my  dear  Wells,  set  to  work  and  answer  him. 

These  are  some  of  the  impressions  that  you  have 
received  from  reading  John  Spargo's  papers.     But 


Becomes  Even  More  Preposterous    79 

the  dominant  impression  left  upon  you,  the  master 
impression  that  rounds  and  binds  all  these  other 
impressions  into  perfect  unity — No,  don't  tell  me ! 
Let  me  tell  you,  just  to  show  you  how  responsive 
our  sympathies  are.  The  final  crowning  impression 
lost  on  your  mind  by  a  careful  study  of  John 
Spargo's  papers,  is  that  of  the  stupendous  absurdity 
of  your  presuming  to  write  about  Russia  at  all.  And 
as  for  offering  to  guide  the  opinions  of  half  Europe, 
not  to  speak  of  several  hundred  Americans — my 
dear  good  Wells,  my  Wells  of  the  giant  mind, 
my  ready  solver  on  the  instant  of  all  the  social, 
political  and  religious  riddles  that  puzzle  human- 
ity, my  plenipotentiary-elect  and  internuncio  of 
all  those  who  cannot  think  for  themselves, — tell 
me,  O  self-beclouded  inconsequential  philosopher, 
have  I  not  guessed  aright  that  the  prevailing  impres- 
sion in  your  mind  is  that  of  the  monstrous,  trans- 
parent absurdity  of  your  utterances  in  these  five 
papers,  and  of  your  whole  position  and  attitude 
toward  Bolshevism  and  Russian  affairs?  You  do 
see  how  absurd  you  are,  don't  you?  How  our 
thoughts  jump  together  on  all  vital  matters.  What? 
You  don't  see  how  absurd  you  are?  Oh,  well,  in 
that  case  I  shall  have  to  show  you. 

Now  please  follow  me  closely.  I  won't  put  any 
unnecessary  strain  upon  you.  Your  fifth  paper 
opens  :  "My  chief  purpose  in  going  from  St.  Peters- 
burg to  Moscow  was  to  see  and  talk  to  Lenin.   .   .   . 


8o  My  Dear  Wells 

I  was  disposed  to  be  hostile  to  him."  A  very  sound 
instinct,  my  dear  Wells.  This  man  had  sent  stolen 
gold  to  corrupt  the  navy  that  protects  you.  He  had 
sent  emissaries  to  kindle  revolt  throughout  the 
British  Empire  and  overturn  the  Government  that 
pays  your  dividends.  No  wonder  you  were  disposed 
to  be  hostile  to  him.  A  very  sound  instinct.  It  docs 
you  credit.  Always  cherish  these  occasional  prompt- 
ings of  your  better  self.  Drop  your  theories,  my 
dear  Wells,  and  trust  to  your  instincts.  You  will  be 
a  wiser  man,  and  you  will  work  less  havoc  on  the 
lower  levels  of  European  and  American  political 
thought. 

You  had,  you  tell  us,  this  instinct  of  hostility  to- 
ward Lenin.  But  he  had  the  great  attraction  of 
being  an  enemy  of  your  country,  so  you  spent  eighty 
hours,  about  half  your  limited  time  in  Russia, 
searching  for  him  in  the  very  appropriate  company 
of  the  "dunnow-wheere  'e  are"  *  sailorman  with  the 
stolen  silver  teapot,  wandering  and  chafing  and 
swearing  in  vexatious  peregrinations.  Of  course 
you  may  argue  that  these  eighty  hours  were  quite 
as  well  spent  as  the  remaining  hours  of  your  trip, 
and  very  much  better  spent  than  the  far  more  nu- 
merous hours  that  you  spend  in  thinking  for  other 
people.  I  will  yield  both  points  to  you.  I  like  to 
give  you  a  little  encouragement.  These  eighty 
hours'  divagations  with  the  sailorman  and  the  tea- 

*  " 'E  dunnow  wheere  'e  are,"  popular  English  music-hall  song. 


Becomes  Even  More  Preposterous    81 

pot,  which,  seeing  that  they  kept  you  from  formu- 
lating theories  for  the  misguidance  and  misgovern- 
ment  of  mankind,  might  have  been  advantageously 
prolonged  to  eighty  years — these  eighty  hours' 
ramblings  being  brought,  as  I  think,  to  a  premature 
untimely  end,  you  at  length  found  yourself  seated 
face  to  face  with  Lenin.  You  tell  us  that  you  are 
disposed  to  be  hostile  to  him,  and  indeed  well  you 
may  be.  Let  us  quote  your  own  opinion  of  Lenin 
in  July,  19 1 8.  (See  "New  York  Weekly  Review," 
December  15,  1920.)  Writing  to  somebody  whom 
the  editor  of  "The  Weekly  Review"  describes  as 
the  famous  megaphonist,  who  published  your  letter 
in  his  magazine,  you  say: 

"Don't  write  me  down  a  Bolshevik.  I'm  a  Wil- 
sonite.  For  the  first  time  in  my  life  there  is  a  man 
in  the  world  that  I  am  content  to  follow." — Be  care- 
ful how  you  abdicate  your  leadership  of  political 
thought,  my  dear  Wells — "Lenin,  I  can  assure  you, 
is  a  little  beast,  like  this — "  Then  followed  a 
drawing  of  the  little  beast, — "He  (Lenin)  just 
wants  power,  and  when  he  gets  it  he  has  no  use  for  it. 
.  .  .  He  doesn't  eat  well,  or  live  prettily" — quite  out 
of  sympathy  with  present  Russian  habits,  it  seems — 
"or  get  children" — shame  on  him — "or  care  for 
beautiful  things."  No,  he  seizes  them  from  those 
who  do,  and  lets  them  moulder  away  in  the  former 
me,  spare  me,  my  dear  Wells.  Except  the  invention 
British  Embassy — "He  doesn't  want  order" — Spare 


82  My  Dear  Wells 

of  a  new  kind  of  honesty,  surely  the  establishment 
of  order  accompanied  by  universal  hunger  and  want, 
is  the  one  supreme  achievement  of  statesmanship 
that  you  claim  for  Lenin.  You  proceed,  with  a  cruel, 
and  I  hope  not  strictly  truthful,  comparison  of  Lenin 
with  your  eminent  Fabian  brother,  who  is  reforming 
the  world  by  statistics — "Lenin  is  just  a  Russian  Sid- 
ney Webb,  a  rotten  little  incessant  egotistical  in- 
triguer."— Dear  !  Dear !  Such  a  good  Fabian  too  ! 
Dear!  Dear! — "He  (Lenin,  not  Sidney  Webb) 
ought  to  be  killed  by  some  moral  sanitary  author- 

That  was  your  opinion  of  Lenin  in  July,  191 8 — 
a  little  beast,  a  grasper  of  power  which  he  cannot 
use,  an  objectionable  feeder,  a  boorish  despiser  of 
pretty  living,  a  wretched  celibate,  a  scorner  of 
beautiful  things,  a  rotten  little  incessant  intriguer, 
who  ought  to  be  killed  in  the  interests  of  moral  sani- 
tation. Since  you  wrote  that  description  of  Lenin 
he  has  devastated  and  depopulated  Russia  and  in- 
directly tried  to  cut  off  your  dividends.  No  wonder, 
my  dear  Wells,  you  entered  the  Kremlin  with  a  most 
just  and  laudable  hostility  to  this  man.  Nothing  in 
all  these  papers  becomes  you  so  much  as  that. 

Now,  purge  your  eyes  and  your  mind.  Summon 
all  your  latent  perspicacity.  Think  a  little  for  your- 
self instead  of  thinking  for  other  people.  Don't 
get  vertiginous.  You're  in  safe  hands.  Trust  to 
me.     I'll  pull  you  through. 


Becomes  Even  More  Preposterous    83 

What  we  have  to  do  is  to  make  a  strict  and 
searching  inquiry,  namely,  this — What  does  Lenin 
do  or  say  in  this  hour  and  a  half's  chat,  to  change  this 
hostility  of  yours  to  such  enthusiastic  sympathy, 
admiration  and  whole-hearted  support  of  his  aims, 
that  you  advise  the  American  people  to  place  their 
capital  and  their  industrial  resources,  to  some  vast 
extent,  at  his  disposal?  You  insistently  explain  to 
them  that  Lenin  is  governing  Russia  on  vicious,  un- 
workable Marxian  principles.  You  perceive  very 
plainly,  and  you  report  that  Lenin's  aims  cannot  be 
achieved,  until  the  "mentality  of  the  whole  people" 
is  changed,  until  "their  very  souls  are  remoulded." 
How  long  do  you  allow  for  that  process?  Your 
usual  fortnight?  You  further  expose  Lenin's  policy 
by  showing  it  to  be  that  of  fomenting  a  war  between 
the  United  States  and  Japan.  And  then  you  make 
this  monstrous  proposal  to  the  American  people, 
that  they  should  go  into  Bolshevist  Russia  with  their 
"adequate"  resources  (could  infinite  resources  be 
"adequate"),  give  recognition  and  help  to  the  man 
whom  you  have  called  a  little  beast,  a  rotten  little  in- 
cessant and  egotistical  intriguer,  who  ought  to  be 
killed  for  the  sake  of  moral  sanitation — and  become 
the  supporter,  the  right  hand  and  consultant  of  his 
crazy  bankrupt  government. 

Ho,  all  fiduciaries  of  common  sense,  avenge  her 
rape!  Ho,  all  ye  tribes  of  lexicographers!  Ho,  all 
ye  hidden  powers  that  mint  the  American  vernacular, 


84  My  Dear  Wells 

coin  mc  some  adjective  that  will  give  forth  the  faint- 
est adumbration  of  this  inexpressible  monumental 
absurdity!  Hallmark  It,  I  beseech  you,  with  some 
new  form  of  speech!     I  am  dumb. 

Now,  my  dear  Wells,  you  do  begin  to  see  how 
absurd  you  are,  don't  you  ?  I  knew  you  would.  But 
tell  me,  sly  blagueur,  what  Induced  you  to  attempt 
this  hoax  upon  American  credulity?  The  American 
people  have  done  you  no  harm  except  to  help  you  to 
persuade  yourself  that  you  are  a  profound  social 
philosopher — a  generous,  careless  Indiscretion  of 
theirs,  which  you  might  readily  forgive  them.  On 
the  whole,  you  owe  the  American  people  a  debt  of 
gratitude  even  greater  than  you  owe  to  me.  No, 
no,  my  dear  Wells;  hoax  yourself  as  much  as  you 
please,  hoax  half  Europe,  but  spare  those  guileless 
Americans  who  are  so  amiably  disposed  towards 
you  as  to  allow  you  to  do  their  thinking  for  them. 

Let  us  return  to  our  inquiry.  'Tenshun,  my  dear 
Wells ! 

I  have  again  scrupulously  studied  your  fifth  paper, 
and  I  am  more  than  ever  puzzled  to  find  a  reason 
that  you  should  change  from  well-founded  hostility 
to  Lenin  to  cordial  approbation  and  co-operation 
with  his  designs,  especially  with  his  demand  for 
American  capital.  Obviously  of  all  ways  to  destroy 
capital,  the  easiest  Is  to  put  It  anywhere  within 
Lenin's  reach,  as  the  state  of  Russia  shows.  In 
your  lofty  aim  of  abolishing  capital,  you  are  nat- 


Becomes  Even  More  Preposterous    85 

urally  in  sympathy  with  him,  and  if  by  conspiring 
with  him,  the  pair  of  you  can  effectually  destroy 
American  capital,  and  bring  the  United  States  to 
something  approaching  the  blessed  condition  of 
Russia,  you  would  be  justified  in  overlooking  the 
fact  that  he  is  a  little  beast,  a  rotten  little  incessant 
intriguer,  who  ought  to  be  killed,  &c. 

Again,  if  he  can,  as  he  explains  that  he  desires, 
bring  about  an  alliance  between  America  and  Russia, 
break  down  the  general  good  understanding  between 
America  and  England  which  is  the  sole  guarantee 
of  the  world's  peace,  and  thus  involve  your  own 
country  in  further  grievous  perplexities  and  inse- 
curities, then  again  you  will  claim  you  are  justified 
in  feeling  a  warm  friendship  for  him,  and  in  for- 
getting that  he  is  a  rotten  little  incessant  intriguer, 
&c.,  &c.,  &c.  Perhaps  it  was  this  noble  motive  that 
turned  your  heart  to  him. 

Further,  you  agree  with  Lenin  that  the  world 
must  be  turned  upside  down,  inside  out,  and  blasted 
to  pieces  before  it  can  be  got  to  turn  comfortably 
upon  its  own  axis.  That  is  another  bond  of  sym- 
pathy between  you  and  Lenin.  You  further  agree 
that  in  Russia — and  pray  why  not  elsewhere? — the 
mentality  of  the  whole  people,  their  very  souls,  must 
be  remoulded  before  we  can  begin  to  tidy  up  the 
world  for  the  millennium.  Lenin  would  bring  about 
the  millennium  by  Marxism.  You  would  bring  it 
about  by  Collectivism. 


86  My  Dear  Wells 

By  the  way,  what  is  Collectivism?  I  picture  It  as 
a  kind  of  universal  Adams  Express  Company  that 
goes  round  collecting  everybody's  goods,  the  only 
difference  being  that  Collectivism  doesn't  deliver 
them  at  any  discoverable  address.  Lenin  therefore 
appears  to  be  a  good,  sound,  practical  and  practicing 
Collectivlst.  You  say  he  Is  a  Marxist.  And  Sidney 
Webb,  you  say,  Is  a  rotten  little  incessant  egotistical 
intriguer.  I  do  wish  all  you  good  Socialists  would 
agree  among  yourselves,  and  then  we  could  settle 
down  In  earnest  and  begin  to  tidy  up  the  world  for 
the  millennium. 

At  any  rate,  you  and  Lenin  and  Sidney  Webb  all 
agree  that  everybody's  property  must  be  "collected" 
and  not  returned  to  him. 

But  never  mind  the  means,  Marxist,  collectivlst 
or  rotten  Incessant  intriguist,  or  all  three,  so  long 
as  we  get  our  millennium.  Let's  have  a  millennium 
of  some  sort,  at  any  intermediate  cost  of  bloodshed, 
misery,  disorder  and  starvation.  Lenin  thinks  it 
will  take  ten  years  to  get  a  millennium.  You  are  not 
very  definite  about  the  date.  But  fortnight  or  ten 
years,  you  and  Lenin  both  see  a  millennium,  as  plain 
as  a  pikestaff  before  your  eyes,  with  a  quite  negligible 
foreground  of  realities. 

My  dear  Wells,  you  remind  me  of  the  heroine 
of  Sheridan's  "Critic."  When  Tilburina  went  mad 
in  white  satin  she  saw  all  sorts  of  things  that  weren't 
there.     Her  plain,  matter-of-fact  father,  the  Gov- 


Becomes  Even  More  Preposterous    87 

ernor  of  Tilbury  Fort,  whom  I  strongly  resemble 
in  my  steadfast  refusal  to  see  things  that  aren't 
there,  showered  a  cold  douche  of  common  sense  on 
the  ecstatic  Tilburina.     He  soberly  addressed  her; 

"Peace,  daughter! 
The  Spanish   Fleet   thou   canst  not  see, 
Because  it  is  not  yet  in  sight." 

When  I  see  you,  my  dear  Wells,  decking  yourself 
in  bridal  anticipation  of  the  millennium  in  phrases 
of  white  satin,  to  be  paid  for  by  some  future  Col- 
lectivist  State,  going  distracted  as  Tilburina,  and 
seeing  all  sorts  of  things  that  aren't  there — when  I 
see  you  In  this  condition,  I  feel  that  prose  is  inade- 
quate and  that  your  necessities  call  upon  me  to  deal 
with  you  in  iambics : 

Peace,  Godson ! 
This  Heaven  on  Earth  thou  canst  not  see, 
Because  it  is  not  yet  in  sight. 

Well,  now,  Fm  sure  you  see  how  absurd  you  are. 
That's  right!  Brave  lad!  It  needs  a  good  deal  of 
courage,  but  it's  a  most  wholesome  state  of  mind. 
Many  a  man's  worst  ills  come  upon  him  from  not 
knowing  when  he's  making  himself  absurd.  Brave 
lad!  I  shall  make  a  good  British  citizen  of  you 
before  Fve  done  with  you. 

You  will  own  that  I  have  had  a  rather  stiff  job, 
that  at  times  you  have  shown  yourself  impervious 


88  My  Dear  Wells 

to  reason,  oblivious  of  logic,  amorous  of  fallacy, 
contumacious  to  facts  in  your  dealing  with  them.  If 
I  hadn't  coaxed  and  wheedled  you  in  my  gentle 
urbane  way,  you  might  not  have  quite  realised  how 
unfathomably  absurd  you  are — eh?  What?  What, 
my  dear  Wells  I  You  don't  even  now  see  how 
absurd  you  are? 

Really,  my  dear  Wells,  this  is  too  bad  of  you  I 
You  are  imposing  too  much  on  my  good  nature. 
Just  as  I  thought  I'd  lured  you  on  to  do  a  bit  of 
clear  thinking,  if  not  about  Russia,  at  least  about 
yourself,  you  back  out,  and  I  shall  have  all  my 
trouble  over  again.  I  have  been  very  lenient  to 
you  hitherto,  but  there  are  limits.  Then  you  don't 
even  now  see  how  absurd  you  are? 

What  about  the  following  passages  in  your  fifth 
paper? 

You  tell  us  that  the  elaborate  arrangements 
necessary  for  the  personal  security  of  Lenin  put  him 
out  of  reach  of  Russia,  and  what  is  more  serious, 
put  Russia  out  of  his  reach.  The  filtering  processes 
that  have  to  go  on,  upward  and  downward,  back- 
ward and  forward,  block  all  free  communication 
between  him  and  the  Russian  masses.  Lenin,  you 
show  us,  has  no  personal  or  political  access  to  the 
people  he  is  governing,  and  they  have  no  access  to 
him.  Yet,  my  dear  Wells,  you  advise  the  Americans, 
pretty  innocents,  to  put  vast  sums  of  money  and  vast 
industrial  equipment  at  the  disposal  of  a  Govern- 


Becomes  Even  More  Preposterous    89 

ment  that  rules  in  tyrannic  Isolation  from  the  people. 
It  must  be  this  principle  of  tyrannic  isolation  from 
the  will  of  the  people  that  makes  Bolshevist  govern- 
ment so  attractive  to  that  section  of  our  English 
working  classes  who  are  urging  our  own  Govern- 
ment to  recognise  and  embrace  Lenin  and  his  as- 
sociates. Is  democracy  resolved  to  destroy  de- 
mocracy?    Look  at  Greece. 

Once  more,  my  dear  Wells.  You  offer  the  Amer- 
icans another  inducement  to  make  this  gilt-edged 
investment.  You  tell  us  that  in  their  endeavour  to 
establish  a  social  and  economic  order  by  means  of 
taking  away  everybody's  property,  these  communists, 
"at  a  hundred  points,  do  not  know  what  to  do." 
They  are  like  your  sailorman  with  the  teapot :  "  'E 
dunnow  where  'e  are."  I  suppose  it  is  this  bottom- 
less confusion  of  governmental  aims,  the  natural 
attraction  of  like  to  like,  which  again  draws  that 
section  of  our  English  working  classes  who  cannot 
think  for  themselves,  to  further  Bolshevist  activities 
in  England.     They  "dunnow  where  they  are." 

Why  persuade  confiding  Americans  to  place  their 
surplus  cash  in  the  hands  of  a  "dunnow-where-'e- 
are"  Government?  You  are  superb,  unapproach- 
able, when  you  employ  your  "giant  mind"  on  a 
theory.  I  never  met  a  man  with  a  better  assortment 
of  theories.  Why  not  work  out  a  theory  of  pcrmut- 
able  equations  at  Monte  Carlo,  take  all  the  shiploads 
of  Americans  who  believe  in  you  to  that  paradise  of 


90  My  Dear  Wells 

investors  and  give  them  a  good  time,  with  a  good, 
solid  chance  of  making  some  money?  I'll  come  with 
you. 

Yet  once  again,  my  dear  Wells.  Perhaps  the  most 
delightful  of  all  your  waggeries  in  this  fifth  paper 
is  your  confession  that  you  had  never  realised  till 
you  went  to  Petrograd  "that  the  whole  form  and 
arrangement  of  a  town  is  determined  by  shopping 
and  marketing,  and  that  the  abolition  of  these  things 
renders  nine-tenths  of  the  buildings  in  an  ordinary 
town  directly  or  indirectly  meaningless  and  useless." 

When  I  read  that  I  called  out  to  Archibald  Spof- 
forth,  "Wells  has  got  a  glimmering." 

"It's  about  time  he  had,"  Spofforth  growled. 
Spofforth's  manner  toward  you  disgusts  me.  It  is 
so  disrespectful.  His  tone  showed  that  he  grudged 
you  even  this  most  rudimentary  perception  of  cause 
and  effect. 

"Listen  to  this,"  I  said,  and  I  read  to  Spofforth 
the  succeeding  passages,  where  you  and  Lenin  agreed 
that  by  the  operation  of  his  principles,  or  by  the 
operation  of  yours,  in  any  case  by  the  abolition  of 
shopping  and  marketing,  the  existing  towns  would 
dissolve  away  and  for  the  most  part  become  a  dead, 
forsaken  waste.  You  don't  seem  to  have  troubled 
about  what  would  become  of  the  inhabitants.  Pre- 
sumably nine-tenths  of  them  would  dissolve  away, 
too,  as  indeed  they  are  already  doing. 

In  the  discussion  of  this  blissful  future  for  Russia, 


Becomes  Even  More  Preposterous    91 

Lenin's  heart  warmed  toward  you  and  you  forgot 
your  hostility  to  the  "little  beast,"  the  "rotten  little 
incessant  egotistical  intriguer,"  &c.,  who  "ought  to 
be  killed  by  some  moral  sanitary  authority."  How 
could  you  harbour  hostility  to  a  man  who  was  not 
merely  writing  about  pulling  civilisation  to  pieces, 
but  was  actually  engaged  in  this  beneficent  work? 

The  hour  and  a  half  passed  cheerfully  away,  well 
worth  the  eighty  hours  you  had  spent  with  the  sailor- 
man  and  the  teapot  to  obtain  the  Interview.  Lenin 
might  be  talking  Marxian  nonsense,  while  you  were 
talking  Collectivist  nonsense.  The  great  bond  of 
union  between  you  was  that  you  were  both  talking 
nonsense,  that  perpetual  freemasonry  and  link  of 
brotherhood  between  all  mankind.  Lenin's  nonsense 
may  be  a  different  kind  of  nonsense  from  your 
nonsense,  but  take  my  word  for  it,  my  dear  Wells, 
both  kinds  of  nonsense  are  equally  mischievous,  and 
tend  to  the  destruction  of  civil  liberty,  the  dissolu- 
tion of  social  order  and  the  ruin  of  civilisation.  You 
don't  think  that  this  is  the  tendency  of  your  kind  of 
nonsense?  Ah,  my  dear  Wells,  Lenin's  nonsense 
has  been  put  Into  practice,  and  its  result  is  apparent. 
Your  nonsense  hasn't  been  put  into  practice — yet. 

But  at  least  your  visit  to  Russia  brought  about 
your  belated  realisation  of  the  fact,  very  obvious  to 
everybody  who  had  given  a  moment's  consideration 
to  the  matter,  that  the  abolition  of  private  property 
and  of  the  established  modes  and  codes  of  commer- 


92  My  Dear  Wells 

clal  intercourse,  results  in  laying  waste  nine-tenths  of 
the  habitable  quarters  of  every  town,  while  nine- 
tenths  of  the  wretched  inhabitants  perish  or  go  to — 
Lenin  knows  where.  Ask  him.  And  ask  the  des- 
perate, poverty-stricken,  miserable  Russian  refugees 
who  have  fled  from  him  to  New  York.  They  don't 
like  this  new  Utopia  that  Lenin  is  providing  for 
them.  They  won't  like  your  Utopia  any  better — 
when  they  get  it. 

Well,  now,  my  dear  Wells,  one  plain,  serious 
question — Do  you,  or  do  you  not  see  how  absurd 
you  are  in  your  pretensions  to  be  a  social  philoso- 
pher? In  the  absence  of  any  express  denial 
from  you,  I  shall  take  it  for  granted  that  you 
agree  with  me,  and  that  you  do  see  how  absurd 
you  are.  Well,  that  matter  is  settled.  I  have 
marked  down  in  this  fifth  paper  of  yours  ex- 
actly seventy-six  passages,  phrases  and  inferences 
which  bear  more  or  less  on  this  important  question 
which  I  have  asked  you  for  your  soul's  good.  Sev- 
enty-six there  are  in  all.  I  have  dealt  with  only  a 
few  of  them.  Will  it  be  necessary  for  me  to  examine 
a  few  more,  or  all  of  them,  before  you  give  me  your 
answer?     I  am  at  your  service. 

If  you  insist  that  I  shall  proceed  any  further,  I 
think  you  ought  to  hold  out  to  me  some  prospect 
of  a  little  bonus  for  myself.  I  have  already  lost, 
in  my  bet  to  Spofforth,  a  new,  shiny  silk  top  hat  be- 
cause of  my  undue  confidence  in  you.     Now,  great 


Becomes  Even  More  Preposterous    93 

as  are  my  objections  to  your  social  theories,  I  have 
a  still  greater  objection  to  losing  my  money  upon 
you.  I  think  you  are  bound  in  all  fairness  to  give 
me  a  chance  of  getting  it  back.  I  am  willing  to  take 
the  risk.  I'll  bet  you  a  new,  shiny  silk  top  hat — a 
nondescript  billycock  for  you,  if  you  think  it  more 
becoming,  or  more  symbolic  of  your  principles — I'll 
bet  you  a  new,  shiny  silk  top  hat  that  if  I  do  examine 
these  seventy-six  passages  in  your  fifth  paper — or  as 
many  of  them  as  are  relevant — I'll  bet  you  a  new, 
shiny  silk  hat  that  when  I've  finished  with  you, 
whether  or  not  you  think  yourself  absurd,  you  won't 
be  able  to  find  ten  men  all  over  the  United  States 
who  can  think  for  themselves,  and  who  will  not  say 
that  in  these  papers  of  yours  on  Russia  you  have  not 
only  made  yourself  absurd,  but  that  you  have  made 
absurdity  itself  ridiculous  in  any  attempt  to  com- 
pete with  you. 

Come,  my  dear  Wells,  be  a  sport.  Take  me  on. 
Civilisation,  as  you  complacently  predict,  may  be  in 
ruins  before  you  have  to  pay  up.  Is  it  a  bet?  Yes, 
my  dear  Wells,  it  may  be  that  our  present  civilisation 
is  approaching  its  end,  and  that  end  will  hardly  be 
a  peaceful  one.  But  the  dissolution  of  the  present 
social  order  will  not  be  brought  about  because  men 
have  refused  to  accept  your  "modern  ideas."  It 
will  be  brought  about  because,  in  their  private  lives, 
men  have  neglected  and  disobeyed  certain  plain  old 
rules  of  conduct,  because  in  their  public  lives  they 


94  My  Dear  Wells 

have  defied  and  legislated  against  certain  first 
changeless  principles  and  economic  laws  which  form 
the  basis  of  all  government,  of  all  civil  order,  and  of 
all  common  social  life. 

To  sum  up  your  articles  on  "Russia  In  the 
Shadows" :  There  is  nothing  in  them  that  can  help 
the  Russian  people  to  regain  security,  comfort  and 
prosperity.  There  are  some  things  that  may  en- 
courage them  to  further  revolution  and  anarchy. 
There  are  many  passages  in  them  that  foster  treason 
to  your  own  country;  there  are  other  passages  that 
are  treason  to  humanity;  worst  blot  of  all,  there 
are  not  a  few  passages  that  are  treason  to  common 
sense. 

Henry  Arthur  Jones. 

P.  S. — I  enclose  herewith  a  thoughtful  little 
pamphlet  entitled  "The  Folly  of  Having  Opinions 
— a  Perennial  Caution  to  Mankind."  I  hope  you 
will  read  it  and  treasure  it.  It  is  the  last  copy  in 
existence,  but  I  think  you  have  more  need  of  it  than 
myself.  The  author  is  anonymous,  but  I  suspect 
Spofforth. 

30th  December,  1920. 


LETTER  NINE. 

THE  FABIAN  BEANFEAST. 

My  Dear  Wells, — 

It  may  be  a  good  habit,  or  it  may  be  a  bad  habit, 
and  this  is  a  matter  upon  which  you  are  supremely 
qualified  to  have  an  opinion — but  in  either  case  it  is 
clear  that  I  have  now  got  into  a  hopelessly  confirmed 
habit  of  writing  letters  to  you.  The  persistency  of 
a  habit,  once  it  has  been  acquired,  was  never  more 
forcibly  illustrated.  I  can  no  more  help  writing 
letters  to  you  than  you  can  help  making  excuses  for 
Bolshevism,  or  filling  your  head  with  impracticable 
ideas  about  Collectivism.  When  I  rise  in  the  morn- 
ing, my  first  thought,  even  before  I  order  my  break- 
fast, is — "What  can  I  do  to  set  Wells  right  today?" 
All  my  waking  hours,  I  am  seeking  to  put  my 
thoughts  into  plain  simple  words,  so  that  you  may 
easily  comprehend  what  I  say  to  you.  And  at  night, 
having  nourished  myself  with  such  fare  as  may  most 
easily  promote  digestion,  and  thus  quicken  my  men- 
tal powers  so  that  they  may  be  all  the  more  readily 
and  faithfully  at  your  service, — at  night,  as  I  lay 
me  down,  I  ask  myself,  "Have  I  done  my  duty  to 
Wells  today  ?    Having  accepted  this  responsible  post 

95 


96  My  Dear  Wells 

of  being  his  candid  friend,  have  I  been  candid 
enough  with  him?  Have  I  persuaded  him  to  chal- 
lenge and  probe  his  own  theories,  to  ask  himself 
how  they  are  to  be  worked  in  this  actual  world 
wherein  we  live,  and  amongst  its  actual  inhabitants? 
Have  I  got  him  to  see  how  mischievous  he  is  in 
trying  to  weaken  the  authority  of  his  own  govern- 
ment, and  to  strengthen  the  forces  of  Bolshevism? 
Have  I  warned  him  off  recommending  the  guileless 
Americans  to  put  their  cash  and  resources  In  the 
hands  of  a  government,  which,  having  repudiated 
its  debts,  pillaged  its  wretched  people,  and  destroyed 
its  own  capital,  Is  now  anxious  to  get  hold  of  Amer- 
ican capital  which  it  avows  It  will  use  to  engage 
America  In  a  war  with  Japan?  Above  all,  have  I 
convinced  Wells  how  absurd  beyond  absurdity  he 
is  In  trying  to  handle  these  matters  at  all?  Have 
I  been  candid  enough  with  Wells?"  And  all  the 
time  I  find  myself  yielding  more  and  more  to  this 
irresistible  Impulse  to  write  another  letter  to  "My 
dear  Wells." 

The  fact  Is,  I  have  grown  to  like  It.  Such  Is  the 
force  of  habit.  Now  if  while  I  am  giving  myself 
a  pleasure,  I  am  also  doing  you  a  service,  as  I  assure 
myself  I  am,  why  shouldn't  I  keep  on?  It  has  now 
become  a  pressing  question  with  me,  how  many  of 
the  remaining  years  of  my  life  I  shall  have  to  spend 
in  this  fascinating  pursuit  of  putting  you  right  in 
your  thinking.     Perhaps  you  had  better  first  decide 


The  Fabian  Beanfeast  97 

whether  my  habit  of  writing  to  "My  dear  Wells" 
is  a  good  one  or  a  bad  one.  For  myself,  I  confess 
I  have  now  become  so  addicted  to  it  that,  good  or 
bad,  I  cannot  break  it  off.  I  am  therefore  helplessly 
at  the  mercy  of  your  decision. 

If  you  think  it  is  a  good  habit,  you  will  encourage 
me  in  it  by  continuing  to  furnish  me  with  material 
such  as  you  lavished  upon  me  in  these  papers  on 
Russia,  and  in  your  various  budgets  of  "modern 
ideas."  If  on  the  other  hand,  you  think  it  a  bad 
habit  that  I  have  fallen  into,  you  will  say,  "Henry 
Arthur  Jones  must  be  stopped.  I'll  cut  off  his  sup- 
plies. I  won't  issue  any  more  fallacies  about  Bolshe- 
vism, or  indeed  upon  any  question.  From  this  time, 
I'll  keep  silence.     That  will  settle  him." 

Though  I  must  own  that  such  a  declaration  by 
you  would  be  for  the  general  good,  and  would  tend 
towards  less  public  bewilderment  of  thought,  yet 
it  would  cause  me  some  personal  disappointment. 
I  should  miss  something  in  life.  But  what  could  I 
do?  I  should  have  to  submit.  And  you  would 
have  the  satisfaction  of  knowing  that  you  had  cured 
me  of  what  you  considered  to  be  a  bad  habit. 

In  my  last  letter  I  dealt  with  a  few  of  the  sev- 
enty-six points  you  had  offered  for  my  consideration 
in  your  fifth  paper  on  Russia.  Being  urged  by  this 
unconquerable,  inappcasable  desire  to  keep  on  writ- 
ing to  "My  dear  Wells,"  I  sadly  reflected  that  this 
was  the  last  of  your  papers  on  Russia.     I  felt  like 


98  My  Dear  Wells 

the  old  soap  boiler,  who,  although  he  had  retired 
from  business,  could  not  keep  away  from  the  factory. 
I  looked  again  over  the  five  papers  with  all  their 
wealth  of  confusion,  fallacy,  and  perversity,  and 
conning  them  afresh,  I  ruefully  recognised  how 
many  golden  opportunities  I  had  lost  through  yield- 
ing to  my  humane  prompting  to  spare  you.  I  was 
thinking  that,  by  way  of  keeping  my  hand  in,  I 
would  bring  to  your  notice  a  few  more  of  the 
startling  lapses  and  discrepancies  that  these  papers 
contain,  when  the  English  mail  arrived,  and  amongst 
my  letters  were  Mr.  Winston  Churchill's  reply  to 
you  in  the  "London  Sunday  Express"  of  December 
12,  1920,  and  your  further  reply  to  him  in  the  same 
paper  on  the  19th  December. 

Certainly  there  will  be  no  reason  for  me  to  hark 
back  upon  your  past  delinquencies,  while  you  con- 
tinue to  provide  me  with  such  ample  stores  of  ma- 
terial for  comment  as  are  to  be  found  in  your  reply 
to  Mr.  Winston  Churchill  ("London  Sunday  Ex- 
press," December  19th).  Why,  my  dear  Wells,  in 
this  one  letter  alone  there  is  matter  that  will  give  me 
hard  employment  for  a  month.  It  took  Tristram 
Shandy  two  years  to  write  the  history  of  the  first 
day  of  his  life.  I  would  not  say  that  I  might  not 
give  two  years  to  the  examination  of  this  letter,  and 
spend  the  time  most  profitably  for  the  public  and 
for  yourself,  while  finding  pleasant  occupation  for 
myself  all  the  while.     I  am  sure  you  never  thought 


The  Fabian  Beanfeast  99 

when  you  were  writing  that  paper  that  it  contained 
such  latent  possibilities.  You  should  realise  a  little 
more  clearly,  my  dear  Wells,  what  cogent  implica- 
tions and  inevitable  expansions  may  be  germinating 
in  every  sentence  you  write. 

To  return  to  this  reply  of  yours  to  Mr.  Winston 
Churchill.  You  may  ask  me  why  I  should  intervene 
in  your  correspondence  with  Mr.  Winston  Churchill. 
For  this  reason,  my  dear  Wells.  I  feel  very  strongly 
that  the  theories  you  are  spreading  with  so  much 
diligence  amongst  those  who  cannot  think  for  them- 
selves, tend  towards  the  further  insecurity,  the  dis- 
integration and  destruction  of  the  British  Empire. 
The  diffusion  of  these  theories  is  especially  dan- 
gerous at  the  present  moment,  when  we  are  beset 
with  so  many  difficulties.  Now  I  think  that  all 
things  considered,  the  British  Empire,  however  im- 
perfect it  may  be,  and  open  to  improvement  in  many 
ways,  does  yet  offer  to  its  hundreds  of  millions  of 
citizens  an  average  degree  of  security,  comfort  and 
happiness,  immeasurably  greater  than  they  would 
enjoy  if  it  were  pulled  to  pieces.  Do  you  say  that 
you  don't  want  to  see  it  pulled  to  pieces?  My  dear 
Wells,  that  would  be  the  certain  result  of  the  appli- 
cation of  your  theories.  You  will  find  that,  inci- 
dentally and  implicitly,  you  have  proved  as  much  in 
your  tenebrous  papers  on  Russia.  Read  them  over 
again. 

Well,   I   don't  want   the   British   Empire   to  be 


100  My  Dear  Wells 

pulled  to  pieces,  or  made  any  more  risky  and  uncom- 
fortable to  live  in  than  it  is  at  present.  To  prevent 
you  and  other  haters  of  England  from  pulling  our 
Empire  to  pieces  is  my  supreme  object  in  writing 
you  these  letters.  Let  us  never  lose  sight  of  that. 
I  may  indeed  snatch  a  few  chances  of  diverting  and 
tickling  you,  as  we  go  along,  but  that  is  only  by 
way  of  giving  you  and  myself  a  little  relief  from 
the  deadly  serious  business  in  which  we  are  en- 
gaged. 

For  make  no  mistake,  my  dear  Wells,  upon  the 
right  solution  of  the  questions  at  issue  between  you 
and  me,  depend  the  security  and  welfare  of  millions 
of  our  fellow  creatures.  And  all  these  questions 
run  into  one  question,  that  insists  on  being  answered 
before  the  world  can  settle  into  something  like  peace 
and  security.  Merezhkovsky,  in  a  piercing  letter  to 
you,  puts  that  question  thus — "At  this  moment,  not 
we  Russians  alone,  but  all  the  peoples  of  the  earth 
are  divided  into  two  camps — for  the  Bolshevists  and 
against  them."  More  than  two  years  ago,  in  the 
autumn  of  191 8,  while  that  other  less  foul,  less 
tyrannic  militarism  was  yet  uncrushed,  I  put  that 
same  question  in  other  words  to  your  fellow  country- 
men and  mine — "Patriotism  or  Internationalism — 
O  England,  which  road  will  you  take?" 

My  whole  argument  is  contained  in  Chapter  5 
of  my  "Patriotism  and  Popular  Education."     It  is 


The  Fabian  Beanfeast  loi 

open  to  you  to  study  what  I  have  there  said,  and  to 
refute  me  if  I  am  wrong. 

We  will  now  return  to  your  reply  to  Mr.  Winston 
Churchill.  Why,  my  dear  Wells,  you  offer  me  an 
inexhaustible  mine  for  my  exploration.  In  this 
paper  ("London  Sunday  Express,"  December  19, 
1920)  perhaps  even  more  than  in  your  papers  on 
Russia,  you  betray  the  texture  of  your  mind,  you 
reveal  your  method  of  controversy,  you  expose  the 
quality  of  your  arguments,  and  what  is  more  relative 
to  my  general  purpose,  you  give  us  a  measure  of 
your  competence  to  think  for  other  people.  For  all 
these  reasons,  a  searching  examination  of  your  reply 
to  Mr.  Churchill  will  have  a  permanent  interest  and 
value  beyond  the  discussion  of  the  appertaining  facts. 
It  will  remain  as  a  Wellsometer,  always  available 
for  reference  whenever  you  launch  your  theories  on 
mankind. 

Let  us  first  glance  at  Mr.  Churchill's  paper 
("London  Sunday  Express,"  December  5,  1920). 
He  rapidly  sketches  your  attitude  towards  Bolshe- 
vism, and  then  as  rapidly  reviews  the  leading  move- 
ments and  developments  of  civilization  that  brought 
about  a  great  accumulation  of  world  wealth  and  pros- 
perity at  the  beginning  of  this  century.  He  shows 
that  Bolshevism  and  its  kindred  heresies  are  a  re- 
versal of  those  alleviations  and  bettering  of  the  con- 
ditions of  the  masses,  which  had  accompanied  the 


102  My  Dear  Wells 

general  prosperity  of  the  two  or  three  preceding  gen- 
erations. In  one  short  apt  sentence,  he  plainly  sets 
before  this  distracted  world  the  alternative  result 
that  will  folloAV  from  its  adoption  or  refusal  of 
Merezhkovsky's  "Bolshevism  or  Anti-Bolshevism," 
or  as  I  have  put  it,  "Patriotism  or  Internationalism." 
My  formula  is  fundamentally  the  same  as  Merezh- 
kovsky's. According  as  the  nations  choose  the  one 
road  or  the  other,  Mr.  Churchill  tells  them  in  a 
dozen  words  what  will  be  the  inevitable  alternative 
result: 

A  WORLD  OF  EQUALLY  HUNGRY  SLAVES 

or 

A  WORLD  OF  UNEQUALLY  PROSPEROUS  FREEMEN. 

With  much  force  Mr.  Churchill  exhibits  the 
parallel  between  Cancer  in  the  human  body  and 
Bolshevism  in  the  social  and  political  economy  of 
a  nation.  The  whole  paper  is  a  clear,  swift,  suc- 
cinct statement  of  the  matter  in  debate.  How  do 
you  deal  with  it?  Mr.  Churchill  has  attacked  your 
main  positions.  Let  us  study  your  counter-attack. 
I  am  not  here  mainly  concerned  with  the  facts  of  the 
case,  or  with  the  conclusions  you  and  Mr.  Churchill 
draw  from  them.  They  have  been  already  discussed 
between  us.  I  am  here  concerned  to  question  and  to 
test  your  ability  to  deal  with  any  difficult  questions 


The  Fabian  Beanfeast  103 

of  politics  or  economics  whatsoever;  your  compe- 
tence to  think  for  "half  Europe,"  or  even  for  the 
smallest  number  of  people  who  cannot  think  for 
themselves;  indeed  I  hope  I  shall  go  so  far  as  to 
get  you  to  share  my  doubt  as  to  whether  you  are 
able  to  think  clearly  for  yourself,  without  severe 
guidance.  I  have  thus  defined  what  is,  for  the  time, 
the  object  of  our  deliberations.  'Tenshun,  my  dear 
Wells ! 

Throwing  one  sweeping  penetrating  glance  over 
the  whole  field  of  Bolshevism,  the  main  questions 
about  it,  questions  that  concern  the  whole  world,  are 
these : 

First  question,  and  most  important  because  it  must 
be  answered  before  we  can  safely  handle  the  other 
questions: — Is  Bolshevism  firmly  established?  Is 
it  going  to  last?  Upon  this  most  urgent  question 
of  all,  you  tell  us  that  you  hold  two  directly  con- 
tradictory opinions.  In  your  third  paper  you  say: 
"To-day  the  Bolshevist  govermnent  sits,  I  believe, 
in  Moscow,  as  jirmly  established  as  any  Govern- 
ment in  Europe — "  Farther  on  in  the  same  paper 
you  say :  "If  we  help  to  pull  down  the  by  no  means 
firmly  established  government  in  Moscow — " 
With  incredible  obscurity  of  thought  and  sublime 
audacity  of  assertion,  your  reply  to  this  first  urgent 
question  is  as  follows:  "Bolshevism  is  firmly  es- 
tablished.    Bolshevism  is  not  firmly  established.     It 


104  ^y  I^car  Wells 

Is  going  to  last.  It  is  mo/  going  to  last.  Just  which- 
ever suits  the  exigencies  of  my  theory  for  the 
moment." 

Second  question: — If  Bolshevism  is  not  firmly 
established,  how  long  is  it  going  to  last,  and  how 
far  is  it  likely  to  spread? 

Third  question: — What  will  be  the  consequences 
and  reactions  of  Bolshevism  on  the  rest  of  the 
world? 

Fourth  question: — How  far  will  it  be  safe  and 
wise  for  the  governments  of  Western  Europe,  and 
more  especially  for  America,  to  recognise  Bolshe- 
vism, make  treaties  with  it,  support  it,  and  trade 
with  it?  What  securities  can  Bolshevism  offer  that  it 
will  fulfil  any  political  and  commercial  obligations? 

These  four  groups  of  questions  cover  all  the 
essential  matters  of  the  debate  in  which  you,  Mr. 
John  Spargo,  Mr.  Winston  Churchill  and  myself 
have  been  engaged.  All  the  other  matters  that  have 
been  brought  into  discussion  are  merely  secondary, 
illustrative,  incidental,  or  comparatively  irrelevant 
and  negligible. 

Now  please  take  Mr.  Churchill's  article  ("London 
Sunday  Express,"  Dec.  5,  1920)  and  read  it  care- 
fully through.  You  will  find  that,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  a  few  opening  compliments  to  yourself,  Mr. 
Churchill  is  mainly  and  intently  occupied  throughout 
his  paper  in  the  discussion  of  the  four  groups  of 


The  Fabian  Beanfeast  105 

questions  that  I  have  marked  out  above.  He  does 
not  wander  away  In  vague  and  wild  digressions.  As 
schoolboys  say,  he  Is  "on  to  the  ball"  all  the  time. 

Now  I  will  ask  you  to  take  up  your  own  reply  to 
Mr.  Churchill  ("London  Sunday  Express,"  Dec.  12, 
1920).  Please  to  spread  it  in  front  of  you  and 
analyze  it.  I  find  that  your  article  contains  537 
printed  lines.  You  are  debating  with  your  opponent 
upon  the  most  serious  of  all  questions  that  just  now 
concern  mankind.  How  many  lines  of  your  paper 
would  you  say  should  be  given  to  argument  upon 
the  matters  at  issue?  Fix  in  your  mind  the  least 
number  of  lines  out  of  537,  that  your  readers  might 
reasonably  expect  you  to  set  apart  for  plain  simple 
argument  that  makes  an  appeal  to  their  judicial 
faculties. 

My  dear  Wells,  there  is  scarcely  one  line  in  your 
whole  paper  that  makes  such  an  appeal.  There  are 
17  lines  which  you  might  doubtfully  claim  as  argu- 
ment, and  which  I  will  allow  you.  Of  the  remain- 
ing 520  lines,  you  give  no  less  than  165,  almost  a 
third  of  the  whole  paper,  to  personal  detraction, 
insinuation,  comment  and  criticism  relating  to  Mr. 
Churchill,  his  career,  his  character,  his  mistakes,  his 
political  aims  and  ambitions, — all  of  these  165  lines 
widely  away  from  the  matter  in  debate.  Of  the 
remaining  355  lines,  you  are  concerned  In  149  of 
them  with  your  own  theories,  with  slipping  into  the 


io6  My  Dear  Wells 

text  your  own  stock  notions  and  vague  unworkable 
idealisms,  assuming  every  one  of  them  to  be  verified, 
unquestionable,  and  practical.  Incidentally  you  dis- 
cover to  us  that  your  mind  is  a  mechanical  apparatus 
that  works  upon  facts  with  a  spasmodic  reversible 
action,  and  tosses  them  out  from  it  in  hopeless  self- 
contradictions  and  confusions.  The  remaining  206 
lines  of  your  paper  are  taken  up  with  unclassifiable 
generalities  and  irrelevancies.  Thus  an  analysis  of 
the  537  lines  of  your  paper  shows  the  following 
results : 

17  lines  are  given  to  doubtful  argument. 
165  lines,  nearly  a  third,  to  defaming  Mr.  Churchill. 
149  lines  to  illogical  advancement  of  your  own  theories. 
206  lines  to  general  unclassifiable  irrelevancies. 


537  lines— TOTAL. 

Do  you  say  that  In  the  537  lines,  there  is  a  single 
one  more  than  17  that  can  be  legitimately  classed  as 
argument?  I'll  make  you  a  handsome  offer.  I  will 
give  you  one  pound  sterling,  to  be  spent  in  charity, 
for  every  line  above  17  that  you  can  reasonably 
claim  as  argument  dealing  with  the  questions  at  issue. 
The  chances  that  I  keep  on  offering  you! 

Surely,  my  dear  Wells,  you  will  be  able  to  find 
some  thirty  or  forty  additional  lines  of  argument, 
so  that  whenever  you  make  one  of  your  periodical 


The  Fabian  Beanfeast  107 

betrumpeted  descents  upon  the  world  with  a  brand 
new  gospel  of  philosophy,  history,  sociology  or  reli- 
gion, you  will  be  able  to  boast  that  at  least  a  tenth 
part  of  it  is  worth  some  consideration. 

Well,  what  do  you  say  to  my  offer?  You  accept 
it  of  course,  partly  for  the  sake  of  your  reputation, 
but  chiefly  for  the  sake  of  charity.  Let  us  think  in 
what  charitable  way  we  shall  spend  these  thirty  or 
forty,  or  perhaps  a  hundred  pounds,  that  you  will 
mulct  me  for  my  carelessness  in  overlooking  your 
additional  lines  of  argument. 

We  could  have  a  lot  of  ragged  children  or  aged 
couples  to  tea.  It  doesn't  sound  very  lively.  Or 
we  could  give  a  splendid  treat  to  wounded  soldiers. 
But  we  needn't  bother  about  wounded  soldiers,  now 
that  the  war  is  over.  They  are  fast  becoming  a 
nuisance.  Besides,  the  trade  unions  might  object  to 
our  relieving  wounded  soldiers. 

What  do  you  suggest?  There  are  the  hospitals. 
There  are  thousands  of  necessitous  poor,  and  there 
will  be  thousands  more  as  we  progressively  educate 
our  working  classes  to  avoid  manual  labour.  Now 
that  there  is  so  much  unemployment  in  the  house 
building  trades,  we  might  find  a  few  deserving  brick- 
layers— Stop !  I've  got  it.  Charity  begins  at  home. 
What  has  become  of  the  Fabian  Society? 

I  suppose  it  is  still  in  existence,  and  I  suppose  it 
consists  of  more  than  three  members,  although  I've 


io8  My  Dear  Wells 

never  heard  of  more  than  three.  The  general  body 
of  the  Fabian  Society  must  be  badly  in  need  of  a 
little  relaxation  after  a  course  of  your  philosophy 
and  Mr.  Sidney  Webb's  statistics.  We'll  give  the 
Fabian  Society  a  picnic,  eh?  A  thorough  jolly  good 
outing,  where  we  shall  not  only  be  doing  them  a 
charity,  but  getting  some  fun  for  ourselves. 

Then  it's  settled  we  spend  the  thirty,  forty,  or 
hundred  pounds  you  are  going  to  get  out  of  me,  in 
giving  the  Fabian  Society  a  picnic.  We  won't  call 
it  a  picnic.  We'll  call  it  a  beanfeast.  It  sounds 
jollier,  and  it's  more  democratic.  Not  a  mere 
ordinary  beanfeast,  but  quite  a  classy  kind  of 
beanfeast.  We'll  have  a  four-in-hand  and  take 
them  down  to  Hampton  Court,  and  on  to  see 
Windsor  Castle.  How  many  Fabians  are  there? 
Will  one  coach  hold  them  all?  Never  mind.  One, 
two,  a  dozen  coaches  if  necessary.  I  hope  you'll  find 
enough  additional  lines  of  argument  amongst  the 
537  to  cover  the  expenses.  If  you  don't,  I'll  stand  all 
the  costs  of  the  outing.  I'm  determined  to  give  the 
Fabians  a  beanfeast.    Tally-ho !     Tally-ho ! 

Now  let's  arrange  the  details.  We'll  have  a  band. 
I  should  like  it  to  play  national  airs.  It's  a  long  time 
since  the  Fabians  have  heard  them.  As  I  provide 
the  beanfeast,  I  really  must  insist  on  driving  the 
coach.  I'll  get  a  new  coaching  rig-out  for  the  occa- 
sion, and  I  shall  stick  a  Union  Jack  In  my  beaver 


The  Fabian  Beanfeast  109 

hat.  It  would  be  a  pleasing  concession  to  their  host, 
if  the  Fabians  would  do  the  same.  And  we'll  have 
some  very  spirited  horses,  and  give  them — and  the 
Fabians — beans. 

Tally-ho!     Tally-ho! 

You  are  suspecting  that  this  is  a  cunning  design 
of  mine  to  lure  the  Fabians  on  to  the  top  of  a  coach, 
and  turn  them  all  over  into  a  ditch.  Not  at  all,  my 
dear  Wells.  It's  true  that  I've  never  driven  a  four- 
in-hand,  but  the  Fabians  will  be  vastly  more  safe  in 
my  care  than  "half  of  Europe"  is  in  yours. 

One  or  two  more  details.  No  prostitution  of  our 
natural  good  sense  to  statistics,  or  anarchic  sociol- 
ogy, or  International  vagaries,  but  just  a  day  of 
sheer  rollicking  amongst  vivid  live  human  realities. 

Tally-ho !     Tally-ho ! 

And  as  we  break  up,  after  a  day,  which  though 
devoted  to  roaring  frolic,  will  yet  I  hope  convey  a 
profound  moral  lesson  to  the  Fabians, — before  we 
part,  we  will  stand  in  a  circle  and  sing  the  National 
Anthem.  You  won't  sing  the  National  Anthem? 
I  think  you  will,  after  a  while,  if  I  only  handle  you 
long  enough  and  suavely  enough.  You  might  begin 
practicing. 

Hey!  Hey!  Hey!  All  this  while,  I've  been  for- 
getting that  this  Fabian  beanfeast  depends  upon  your 
finding  that  in  your  discourse  of  537  lines,  there  are 
more  than  17  of  them  that  attempt  to  grapple  with 


no  My  Dear  Wells 

your  subject.  Search  It  again.  How  many  more 
can  you  find?  My  cheque  book  is  on  the  table  before 
me.     Send  in  your  claim. 

Expectantly  yours, 

Henry  Arthur  Jones. 
New  York  City, 
January  13,  1921. 

In  answer  to  my  repeated  invitations  to  Mr.  Wells 
to  take  some  share  in  this  controversy,  he  was  so 
obliging  as  to  send  a  letter  to  the  London  Evening 
Standard  of  December  25,  igzo.  As  I  anticipated, 
he  did  not  attempt  to  meet  me  in  argument.  He 
followed  the  course  I  had  suggested  to  him  (see  Let- 
ter 8,  p.  ys)  and  called  me  a  liar — this  time  an  "out- 
and-out  liar."  He  accused  me  of  ''vanity,"  of 
"trading  on  the  careless  hospitalities  of  his  younger 
days."  He  spoke  of  my  heart  being  "full  of 
malice,"  of  my  having  an  "incurable  grudge"  against 
him,  of  my  "dreary  hostility,"  of  my  "everlasting 
hooting  and  lying,"  with  other  like  elegancies  of 
controversy.  A  little  inconsistently,  he  complained 
that  I  bored  him,  and  he  suggested  to  his  readers 
that  they  should  also  feel  bored  with  me.  He  com- 
pared me  with  a  foghorn — "You  never  know  when 
the  damned  thing  won't  be  hooting  again."  But  he 
never  attempted  to  meet  me  in  argument.  Indeed 
in  a  letter  to  the  New  York  Times  of  6th  January 


The  Fabian  Beanfeast  ill 

IQ2I,  Mr.  Wells  magnificently  announced,  "I  never 
argue  with  Mr.  H.  A.  Jones."  We  must  allow  Mr. 
Wells  to  be  the  best  judge  of  his  own  limitations. 

H.  A.  J. 


LETTER  TEN. 

THE  WICKED  MR.  WINSTON, 
CHURCHILL. 

My  Dear  Wells, — 

The  wise  men  of  Laputa,  as  Gulliver  tells  us, 
were  so  absorbed  in  their  own  ideas,  and  so 
rapt  away  from  the  obvious  facts  under  their 
nose,  that  they  needed  a  constant  attendant  to 
recall  them  to  the  actualities  of  life,  so  that  they 
might  not  damage  themselves  by  knocking  their 
heads  against  any  post,  or  by  falling  over  any 
precipice  that  was  in  their  way.  These  attend- 
ants carried  a  blown  bladder,  fastened  like  a  flail  at 
the  end  of  a  stick,  and  filled  with  dry  peas  or  little 
pebbles.  They  were  called  "flappers" — a  name 
which  is  now  used  to  denote  a  much  less  useful  class 
of  persons.  Whenever  it  was  necessary  to  waken 
a  Laputan  philosopher  to  some  obstacle  in  his  path, 
or  get  him  to  abandon  his  vagaries  and  listen  to 
serious  discourse,  his  flapper  would  give  him  a  slap 
on  the  face  with  the  bladder. 

Being  impressed  with  your  startling  resemblance 
to  the  Laputan  philosophers,  I  resolved  that  I  would 

112 


The  Wicked  Mr.  Winston  Churchill    1 13 

put  aside  less  urgent  business  and  constitute  myself 
your  flapper — in  tlie  Laputan  sense. 

I  had  just  come  to  this  decision,  when  I  received  a 
copy  of  the  "Evening  Standard"  of  Dec.  28,  1920, 
containing  your  letter  to  the  editor  which  begins 
thus:  "Sir,  being  written  at  by  Mr.  H,  A.  Jones 
is  like  living  near  some  sea  channel  with  a  foghorn. 
You  never  know  when  the  damned  thing  won't  begin 
hooting  again." 

I  was  struck  with  the  appropriateness  of  your 
comparison  of  myself  to  a  foghorn.  My  dear 
Wells,  the  image  is  perfect.  Instantly  I  pictured 
you  as  some  dreadful  succubus  of  compact  palpable 
fog,  haunting  and  waylaying  ships  on  the  main  ocean 
highways,  exhaling  mists  and  vapours  of  Collec- 
tivism, and  enticing  victims  from  "half  Europe"  on 
to  the  sand-banks  of  Internationalism.  Naturally 
you  find  a  foghorn  annoying,  and  wish  the  "damned 
thing"  would  stop. 

Foghorns  have  always  had  a  peculiar  attraction 
for  me.  The  moment  you  suggested  I  should  be 
one,  I  leaped  at  the  chance.  It  then  occurred  to  me 
that  I  had  just  undertaken  the  arduous  post  of  being 
your  "flapper" — in  the  Laputan  sense.  The  ques- 
tion is,  can  I  combine  the  rather  incongruous  duties 
of  flapper  and  foghorn?  Why  not?  Without  for 
a  moment  remitting  my  personal  attendance  upon 
your  heedless  steps,  1  can  at  the  same  time  give  out 
loud  prolonged  warnings   to   all   whom  you  have 


114  My  Dear  Wells 

enshrouded   in   fog,   "Keep   off   the   sand-banks   of 
Internationalism." 

My  dear  Wells,  you  shall  not  say  that  I  failed 
you.  I  accept  the  double  responsibility.  I  will  be 
both  flapper  and  foghorn.  I  am  quite  taken  with 
the  idea  of  being  a  foghorn.  The  only  fault  of  a 
foghorn  is  its  tiresome  tautophony.  Its  possibilities 
as  a  musical  instrument  have  never  been  tested.  I 
intend  to  be  quite  a  new  kind  of  foghorn.  I  shall 
not  only  give  out  some  tremendous  booms  and  hoots 
and  groans  and  blasts  and  howls,  but  I  shall  also 
play  a  few  lively  tunes — you  will  be  inclined  to  dance 
to  them. 

Your  letter  proceeds:  "Mr.  Jones  trades  on  the 
careless  hospitalities  of  my  younger  days  to  address 
me  as  'My  dear  Wells'."  In  years  gone  by  I  did 
indeed  listen  on  several  evenings  to  your  philosophy, 
and  also  to  your  performances  on  the  pianola.  I  did 
not  then  criticize  your  philosophy,  but  I  did  then,  and 
can  now,  honestly  praise  you  as  a  master  on  the 
pianola.  You  always  knew  exactly  what  tunes  it 
was  going  to  play,  and  you  played  it  with  such 
delicacy  and  sureness  of  touch  that  I  found  it  less 
mechanical  than  your  philosophy.  O,  if  you  had  as 
sovereign  a  command  of  social  philosophy  as  you 
have  of  the  pianola ! 

If  I  was  so  forgetful  as  not  to  return  your  hos- 
pitality, I  hope  you  will  redress  the  wrongs  I  have 
done  you  in  that  respect  by  coming  with  a  ferocious 


The  Wicked  Mr.  Winston  Churchill    1 15 

appetite  on  the  day  when  I  take  the  Fabians  to  their 
beanfeast  at  Windsor.  I  do  not  think  you  should 
object  to  my  calling  you  "My  dear  Wells."  To  me 
there  is  something  caressing  in  the  sound.  I  use  it 
to  show  you  how  wrongly  you  estimate  me,  when 
you  say  that  my  heart  "seems  full  of  malice,"  and 
that  I  have  an  "incurable  grudge"  against  you. 
Believe  me,  my  dear  Wells,  I  have  no  incurable 
grudge,  or  any  personal  malice  or  ill  will  towards 
you,  beyond  the  just  fierce  anger  that  I  feel  against 
all  the  tribe  of  theorists,  sophists,  casuists, 
wordsters,  factdodgers,  logicdodgers,  truthdodgers, 
phrase-mongers,  pettifoggers,  doctrinaires,  futili- 
tarians  and  impossiblists,  who  "think"  like  you,  and 
always  "think"  against  England;  who  put  scales  on 
their  eyes,  and  wax  in  their  ears,  and  poison  on  their 
tongues  to  prove  that  England  is  always  in  the  wrong 
and  that  her  enemies  are  always  in  the  right.  I  want 
to  strike  at  them  all  through  you.  I  want  to  show 
the  quality  of  their  "thinking"  when  they  "think" 
against  their  country,  and  when  in  these  perilous 
times,  they  seek  to  multiply  her  embarrassments  and 
insecurities,  and  give  her  over  to  disorder  and  revo- 
lution. But  you  are  a  bad  judge  of  character,  my 
dear  Wells,  if  you  think  that  beyond  this  feeling  I 
have  any  personal  malice  against  you.  All  that  I 
am  trying  to  do  is  to  make  you  a  good  British  citi- 
zen. Submit  patiently  to  the  process,  and  you  will 
find  it  the  less  grievous. 


ii6  My  Dear  Wells 

You  complain  that  I  have  not  read  the  whole  of 
your  writings.  Surely  you  would  not  have  me  criti- 
cize those  works  of  yours  which  I  have  not  read. 
You  will  admit  that  I  am  doing  ample  justice  to 
such  of  them  as  have  come  in  my  way.  I  am  quite 
ready  to  believe  that  those  numerous  volumes  of 
yours  which  I  have  not  read,  contain  equally  rich 
veins  of  sophistry  and  fallacy  which  it  may  be  equally 
necessary  for  me  to  investigate.  Bide  your  time, 
my  dear  Wells.  Let  me  finish  with  those  writings 
of  yours  which  I  have  studied,  and  I  will  then  turn 
my  attention  to  the  others. 

You  also  complain  that  these  letters  of  mine  bore 
you.  My  dear  Wells,  I  am  always  pointing  out  to 
you  the  most  obvious  things  which  you  have  failed 
to  notice.  Let  me  point  out  to  you  the  most  obvious 
thing  of  all — that  if  my  letters  bore  you,  you  have 
the  easiest  and  plainest  way  of  escape.  Why  not 
take  it? 

You  again  call  me  a  liar — nay,  this  time  it  seems 
that  I  am  not  only  a  liar,  but  I  am  an  "out-and-out 
liar."  You  will  recall  that  in  one  of  my  recent 
letters,  I  advised  you  to  take  this  line  of  reply  to 
me.     I  felt  sure  you  would  follow  my  advice. 

And  now,  having  touched  upon  the  most  Interest- 
ing points  in  your  letter  to  the  "Evening  Standard" 
of  Dec.  28th,  we  may  return  to  the  matters  that 
were  engaging  us  when  I  finished  my  last  letter.  We 
arranged  that  we   would  take  your   reply  to   Mr. 


The  Wicked  Mr.  Winston  Churchill    117 

Winston  Churchill  as  the  basis  of  a  strict  inquiry  into 
your  methods  of  "thinking  for  half  Europe,"  and 
into  your  capacity  for  performing  this  stupendous 
intellectual  operation — in  short  as  a  Wellsometer. 
Henceforth  we  are  not  concerned  with  the  Bolshevist 
leaders  or  Bolshevist  principles,  except  as  these  may 
incidentally  serve  to  guide  us  in  our  inquiry.  We 
have  now  addressed  ourselves  to  the  more  general 
and  more  important  question  of  the  quality  and 
value  of  your  statements,  arguments  and  theories  as 
a  popular  social  and  political  philosopher. 

At  the  end  of  my  last  letter,  I  was  uncertain 
whether  you  would  accept  my  suggestion  that  you 
should  begin  to  practise  the  National  Anthem,  or 
whether  you  would  examine  your  reply  to  Mr. 
Winston  Churchill  with  the  object  of  discovering 
how  many  lines,  more  than  a  doubtful  17  out  of 
the  537  it  contained — you  could  claim  as  argument 
upon  the  matters  in  debate.  Doubtless  you  are  at 
this  moment  busily  occupied  in  this  search,  with  the 
view  of  providing  the  Fabian  brotherhood  with  a 
super-magnificent  beanfeast  at  my  expense.  You 
will  let  me  know  the  result  of  your  search. 

Meantime  we  will  take  a  glance  at  the  165  lines, 
out  of  the  537,  which  you  allot  to  the  personal 
detraction  and  abuse  of  Mr.  Churchill.  I  do  not 
know  him,  but  he  seems  to  be  a  very  wicked,  ambi- 
tious, reckless  man.  When  I  read  your  description 
of  him,  I  felt  grateful  to  Providence  that  my  lot  had 


ii8  My  Dear  Wells 

been  cast,  not  with  selfish,  ambitious  politicians,  but 
amongst  the  serene  altruisms  of  the  theatre,  where 
the  personal  aims  and  ambitions  of  actors  and 
actresses  are  never  allowed  to  interfere  with  the 
success  of  the  play,  or  with  the  interests  of  the 
British  drama. 

But  I  am  sorry  to  learn  that  Mr.  Churchill's  con- 
duct is  so  bad  that,  in  your  reply  to  him,  you  felt 
obliged  to  enlarge  upon  it  to  the  extent  of  165  lines, 
which  only  left  you  17  lines  for  argument  on  the 
matters  you  are  disputing  with  him.  Sad,  sad,  it  is, 
my  dear  Wells,  to  reflect  upon  what  stuff  our  Cabi- 
net Ministers  are  made  of.  You  never  know  what 
they  are  up  to.  Sad,  sad  it  is,  my  dear  Wells,  that 
we  have  only  the  staple  of  human  nature  from 
whence  to  choose  our  politicians,  our  public  officials, 
our  clergymen,  and  even  our  Socialists  and  Inter- 
nationalists. Why,  you  even  describe  your  eminent 
Fabian  brother  as  a  "rotten  little  incessant  egotis- 
tical intriguer."  Sad,  sad  it  is !  Such  a  good  Fabian 
too  1  And  yet  apparently  almost  as  undesirable  a 
man  to  manage  our  affairs  for  us  as  Mr.  Churchill 
himself.     Sad,  sad  it  is! 

In  your  recent  exhaustive  researches  in  world  his- 
tory, have  you  met  with  any  instance  where  the 
administration  of  any  country  was  not  more  or  less 
pervaded  by  elements  of  personal  ambition  and  self- 
seeking?  I  am  anxious  to  know  how  you  are  going 
to   keep    them    out    of   the    government    of    your 


The  Wicked  Mr.  Winston  Churchill    1 19 

Collectivist  State.  If  you  don't  take  care,  my  dear 
Wells,  these  rotten  little  Incessant  egotistical 
intriguers  (Lenin,  to  wit),  and  these  dominant 
energetic  ambitious  adventurers  will  seize  the  reins 
of  power  in  your  Collectivist  Commonwealth,  and 
make  it  anything  but  the  universal  happy  garden 
city  that  you  have  hatched  in  your  head;  while  in 
addition  to  their  malign  overseership,  your  Collec- 
tivist State  will  be  liable  to  its  own  peculiar  evils. 
Its  vast  bureaucracy  will  be  saturated  with  the 
dull  lethargic  incompetence  and  multiplying  corrup- 
tion that  are  inseparable  from  the  State  employment 
of  great  numbers  in  the  business  of  looking  after 
other  people's  business.  You  complain  of  the  hide- 
bound stupidity  and  complacent  ignorance  of  our 
present  government  staffs.  Wait  till  you  get  your 
Collectivist  State  with  an  army  of  officials  five  or 
ten  times  as  great.  Surely  the  blundering  waste  and 
expense  attendant  upon  the  Socialistic  legislation 
that  was  necessarily  introduced  during  the  war,  has 
taught  us  a  stern  and  final  lesson.  Not  only  has  it 
shown  us  how  incompetent  the  State  is  to  manage 
all  our  property  and  all  our  affairs,  but  it  has  forced 
us  to  the  other  extreme  of  asking,  "Is  there  any 
business  at  all  that  the  State  can  handle  for  us,  except 
at  a  greater  ultimate  cost  to  the  community,  than  it 
could  be  handled  by  private  persons  who  would  be 
rewarded  according  to  the  measure,  amount  and 
value  of  the  work  they  do  for  the  public?" 


120  My  Dear  Wells 

I  don't  see,  my  dear  Wells,  how  your  Collectlvistic 
State  can  be  got  to  work,  unless  you  personally 
superintend  every  detail  of  its  working,  in  the  inter- 
vals of  launching  your  successive  newspaper  booms. 
Only  by  your  constant  supervision  will  you  be  able 
to  exclude  reckless  wicked  men  of  the  Churchill  type 
from  elbowing  their  way  into  the  management  of  the 
concern.  I  told  you  there  are  wicked  men  in  the 
world  who  won't  let  your  theories  work.  And  from 
what  you  say  of  Mr.  Winston  Churchill,  he  seems 
to  be  one  of  them.  How  shall  we  get  into  posses- 
sion of  our  happy  contented  Collectivist  State,  unless 
all  selfish  aims  and  ambitions  are  ruled  out  of  order 
by  a  vote  of  the  majority? 

I  do  wish  you  would  consider  this  question,  my 
dear  Wells.  I  did  advise  you  not  to  take  that  trip 
to  Russia.  But  you  would  go.  How  much  more 
profitably  and  comfortably  you  could  have  spent 
your  time,  if  instead  of  wandering  about  Moscow  in 
the  company  of  a  "dunnow-wheere-'e-are"  sailorman 
with  a  stolen  teapot,  and  using  bad  language  at  him 
— if  instead  of  wasting  your  precious  hours  in  these 
cheerless  perambulations  and  profane  maledictions, 
.you  had  stayed  at  home,  and  had  seated  yourself 
cosily  at  your  own  fireside,  in  quiet  darkened  sur- 
roundings favourable  to  thought,  and  had  there 
remained  pondering  and  turning  over  in  your  giant 
mind  the  questions  I  am  putting  to  you. 

It  is  not  too  late.     You  can  even  now  begin  to 


The  Wicked  Mr.  Winston  Churchill    121 

study  the  questions  that  you  are  writing  about  at 
such  length  in  the  papers.  First  ask  yourself  this: 
"There  being  in  the  world  a  number  of  wicked, 
ambitious  men  like  Winston  Churchill,  how  can  I 
keep  them  out  of  the  administration  of  my  Collectiv- 
ist  Commonwealth,  seeing  that  these,  and  also 
'rotten  little  incessant  egotistical  intriguers,'  are  the 
kind  of  men  who  are  apt  to  push  themselves  to  the 
front  in  any  government,  and  who  will  be  doubly 
harmful,  nay  absolutely  destructive,  in  any  Collectiv- 
ist  State  which  is  founded  upon  the  theory  that  it  will 
be  perpetually  administered  by  perfectly  capable, 
perfectly  honest  statesmen  who  will  have  no  selfish 
aims  or  personal  ambitions?"  That,  my  dear  Wells, 
is  one  of  the  questions  you  have  to  ask  yourself. 

Further,  and  more  important,  is  this  question: 
"How  can  I  get  the  vast  majority  of  men  and  women 
to  be  so  obliging,  within  the  next  fortnight,  or  say 
six  months,  as  to  change  their  natural  instincts, 
desires,  and  motives  for  action,  so  thoroughly  and 
so  completely  that  for  the  future  they  will  work 
heartily  for  the  advancement  of  my  theories  and 
for  the  welfare  of  my  Collectivist  State,  instead  of 
working  for  themselves,  for  their  wives  and  fami- 
lies, for  the  advancement  of  their  own  interests  and 
the  increase  of  their  own  comforts  and  pleasures?" 

That  is  the  second  question  you  have  to  ask  your- 
self. I  do  not  say  that  great  numbers  of  our  fellow 
men  are  not  capable  of  exalted  heroisms  and  self- 


122  My  Dear  Wells 

sacrifices.  The  war  plainly  showed  it.  Our  English 
working  men  and  women  In  their  rallies  to  the 
defence  of  their  class  interests  and  their  trade 
unions,  constantly  prove  that  they  are  possessed 
of  splendid  endurance,  courage,  heroism,  self- 
denial  for  their  comrades,  unflinching  devotion  to  a 
cause.  In  themselves  these  are  very  noble  qualities. 
They  are,  however,  most  mischievous  and  dangerous 
when  they  are  used  to  back  the  purpose  of  any  one 
class  In  a  nation  to  paralyze  and  exterminate  the 
other  classes.  For  such  a  purpose  cannot  be 
achieved  without  bringing  all  classes  in  the  nation, 
that  Is  the  nation  itself,  to  progressive  misery  and 
ruin. 

This  is  the  plain  object  lesson  and  warning  which 
Russia  is  offering  today  to  our  English  working  men. 
For  them,  for  their  behoof,  has  this  spectacle,  this 
passion  play  of  a  whole  people  vicariously  bearing 
the  sins  of  false  thinkers  and  false  teachers,  this 
infernal  Calvary  with  its  millions  of  martyrs — for 
the  fixed  contemplation  of  our  English  working  men 
has  this  horrible  pageant  of  misery,  crime,  disease, 
starvation  and  ruin,  been  designed  and  played  sans 
Intermission,  night  and  day,  for  three  years  with 
a  continent  for  a  stage.  And  we  know  not  how 
many  acts  have  yet  to  be  played — will  the  curtain 
never  be  rung  down  that  we  may  go  to  our  homes 
and  sleep  in  our  beds?  For  you,  O  English  work- 
ing men,  has  this  mad  interminable  extravaganza  of 


The  Wicked  Mr.  Winston  Churchill    123 

murder  and  dance  and  chorus  of  demons  been 
arranged,  and  in  all  its  details  most  perfectly  stage 
managed,  most  perfectly  played — there's  a  terrible 
moral  in  it  all — will  you  give  heed?  I  take  up  my 
New  York  paper,  and  I  read  that  you  are  shouting 
down  Mr.  Clynes  and  clamouring  for  Soviets. 

You  didn't  quite  catch  the  meaning  of  it  all,  my 
dear  Wells.  Your  head  was  full  of  your  theories, 
so  you  hobnobbed  in  the  Kremlin  with  the  rotten 
little  incessant  egotistical  intriguer,  and  compared 
respective  Utopias  with  him.  You  come  back  to 
your  own  country,  and  you  imagine  that  you  can  use 
these  great  and  noble  qualities  which  great  numbers 
of  our  English  working  men  undoubtedly  possess — 
endurance,  fortitude,  heroism,  self-denial,  comrade- 
ship, devotion  to  a  cause — you  imagine  that  you  can 
use  these  great  qualities  possessed  by  a  more  or  less 
considerable  section  of  our  working  men,  to  inflame 
the  whole  mass  of  them  to  start  a  brand  new 
Collectivist  International  State,  founded  upon  your 
theory  that  the  bulk  of  mankind  can  be  got  to  shape 
their  conduct  and  regulate  their  lives  for  the  benefit 
of  your  State;  that  is,  to  disregard  and  renounce  all 
their  individual  interests  that  are  in  opposition  to 
the  general  welfare  of  your  State;  that  is,  to  act 
from  motives  quite  contrary  to  the  main  motives 
which  through  all  ages  have  mainly  prompted  the 
actions  of  the  majority  of  mankind. 

You  are  not  in  communion  with  facts,  my  dear 


124  ^^y  Dear  Wells 

Wells.  You  are  in  communion  with  your  whimsies. 
There  may  be  great  alleviations  and  betterment  of 
the  average  lot  of  our  working  men — I  wish  it  with 
all  my  heart.  There  may  be  great  and  beneficent 
changes  brought  about  by  their  combination  and 
cooperation  in  such  movements  as  are  for  the  general 
welfare  of  their  own  State,  and  in  certain  limited 
ways  for  the  w^elfare  of  some  other  States.  But 
this  cooperation  and  combination  will  be  beneficial 
to  them,  only  as  far  as  it  does  not  shake  and  weaken 
the  authority  of  their  own  government,  the  security 
of  their  own  State.  Any  attempt  to  start  your 
International  CoUectivist  State  could  only  be  suc- 
cessful in  so  far  as  it  disintegrated  and  destroyed 
the  government  that  does  actually  protect  us  all 
from  anarchy  and  chaos;  protects  our  working  men 
from  living  in  such  hunger  and  misery  and  enslave- 
ment as  the  Russian  workers  are  now  enduring; 
and  incidentally  does  also,  let  me  again  remind  you, 
secure  your  own  enjoyment  of  your  motor  car  and 
cosy  dividends.  Let  this  last  consideration  have 
due  weight  with  you. 

The  very  great  majority  of  mankind,  my  dear 
Wells,  will  never  act  from  such  motives  as  your 
CoUectivist  State  presupposes  they  will  suddenly 
acquire,  will  never  guide  their  general  conduct  with 
the  view  of  fitting  it  to  the  necessities  of  your  theo- 
ries. Great  numbers  of  men  in  all  nations  are  capa- 
ble, under  stress  and  emergency,  of  rising  to  lofty 


The  Wicked  Mr.  Winston  Churchill    125 

united  efforts  of  heroism,  self-sacrifice  and  endur- 
ance, and  of  banding  themselves  in  closest  fellow- 
ship and  aim  for  some  general  good  beyond  their 
own  immediate  palpable  self-interest.  But  these 
efforts-  last  caily  for  a  period,  and  are  followed  by 
reaction  and  lassitude.  The  very  great  majority 
of  men  will  continue  to  act  mainly  from  the  same 
motives  that  have  always  prompted  men  in  all  ages 
and  all  countries. 

Consider  all  these  things  carefully,  my  dear  Wells, 
and  range  them  under  the  headings  of  the  two  ques- 
tions which  I  have  proposed  above  for  your  solution. 
Wrap  yourself  in  undisturbed  seclusion  that  you  may 
focus  all  your  percipience  upon  them.  Discard  your 
theories  and  wrestle  with  the  facts.  Take  a  fort- 
night to  solve  these  questions  before  you  again  bring 
them  before  the  public.  Take  a  month.  Take  a 
year.    If  necessary,  take  the  remainder  of  your  life. 

You  may  say  that  it  is  not  necessary  for  you  to 
study  these  questions.  The  cheapjack  who  sold 
shilling  razors  at  a  country  fair,  explained  to  an 
indignant  rustic  purchaser  that  his  razors  were  not 
meant  to  shave,  but  to  sell.  After  that  he  bolted 
from  the  fair.  You  may  reply  that  your  Collectivist 
State  is  not  meant  to  work,  but  to  sell  to  the  world 
public.  Before  they  find  out  what  you  have  sold 
them,  you  will  have  bolted  from  the  fair.  When  the 
revolution  that  you  are  invoking  actually  comes,  I 
cannot  imagine,  my  dear  Wells,  that  you  will  take 


126  My  Dear  Wells 

any  active  leadership  or  participation  in  it.  Field- 
ing's poet,  seeing  that  fighting  had  begun  in  the  inn 
parlour,  and  that  damaged  heads  and  broken  noses 
were  indicated,  prudently  retired  to  the  loft  above, 
and  took  merely  a  watching  literary  interest  in  the 
bloody  scrimmage  below. 

To  return  for  a  moment  to  this  wicked  Mr. 
Winston  Churchill.  In  the  165  lines  that  you  set 
apart  for  dissection  of  his  private  and  political 
character,  you  clearly  show  that  he  is  a  man  who 
needs  very  close  watching.  We  will  let  it  rest  there 
for  the  time,  and  inquire  further  about  him  when 
we  make  the  careful  detailed  examination  of  your 
reply  to  him  that  we  have  promised  ourselves. 
Looped  and  intertwined  with  the  various  charges  you 
make  against  Mr.  Churchill,  and  equally  remote 
from  the  questions  you  make  believe  to  dispute  with 
him,  are  the  149  lines  in  your  paper  which  you  give 
to  the  insinuation,  dissemination  and  promulgation 
of  your  own  theories.  These  also  will  afford  us 
much  absorbing  matter  for  consideration. 

Indeed  the  whole  paper  is  so  pregnant  with  sug- 
gestion and  implication  that  I  begin  to  ask  myself 
whether  its  adequate  discussion  may  not  take  up 
even  more  than  the  two  years  which  was  the  limit 
of  my  original  estimate.  When  I  say  that  your 
reply  to  Mr.  Churchill  is  pregnant,  I  do  not  mean 
that  it  labours  to  bring  forth  a  shapely  body  of 


The  Wicked  Mr.  Winston  Churchill    127 

living  thought,  but  that  it  bulges  and  protuberates 
with  an  internal  yeasty  superfoetation  of  misbegot- 
ten and  malformed  fallacies  and  irrelevancies — 
what  the  old  midwives  used  to  call  a  false  concep- 
tion. I  know  that  the  latest  school  of  gynecologists 
tell  us  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  false  con- 
ception. I  challenge  them  on  the  point,  and  ask 
them  to  read  your  reply  to  Mr.  Churchill, 

However,  we  have  settled  that  we  will  subject 
the  paper  to  a  searching  examination,  and  find  out 
its  exact  texture  and  composition  and  value.  Let  us 
hope  that  it  will  not  be  necessary  for  us  to  spend 
two  years  in  the  task.  In  your  "Evening  Standard" 
letter,  with  something  less  than  your  usual  extreme 
delicacy  of  feeling  and  expression,  you  remind  me 
that  the  years  are  passing  with  me.  In  apportion- 
ing their  diminished  remainder,  I  find  that,  great 
and  urgent  as  your  necessities  are,  I  cannot  allot 
more  than  three  years  to  the  business  of  making  a 
good  British  citizen  of  you.  If  at  the  end  of  three 
years  I  have  not  made  a  good  British  citizen  of  you, 
I  shall  have  to  give  you  up.  Since  you  wish  me  to 
study  your  other  works  on  social  philosophy,  it  is 
clear  that  we  must  economize  the  time  we  spend 
upon  your  reply  to  Mr.  Churchill.  Let  us  now  set 
about  its  careful  examination,  always  keeping  in 
mind  that  our  main  object  is  to  use  it  as  a  gauge 
of  your  capacity  to  "think  for  half  Europe,"  or  for 


128  My  Dear  Wells 

whatever  number  of  persons  there  may  be  in  either 
hemisphere  who  cannot  think  for  themselves. 

Yours  hopefully, 

Henry  Arthur  Jones. 
January  23,  192 1. 


LETTER  ELEVEN. 

THE  FOGHORN  TUNES  UP. 

My  Dear  Wells, — 

I  am  sometimes  tempted  to  envy  those  writers 
who,  like  yourself,  have  gained  a  world-wide  repu- 
tation by  thinking  for  people  who  cannot  think  for 
themselves.  Consider  how  easy  your  lot  is  compared 
with  my  own.  For  instance,  while  writing  these 
letters  to  you,  I  am  obliged  to  weigh  every  sentence, 
and  put  it  into  relation,  or  at  least  to  take  care  that 
it  does  not  conflict  with  those  eternal  rules  of  pri- 
vate conduct,  and  first  principles  of  social  order  and 
government  whereby  men  and  nations  throughout  all 
the  past  have  guided  themselves  and  established 
themselves  in  peace,  security  and  prosperous  con- 
tent. You  are  under  no  such  obligations.  You  need 
only  to  blaze  abroad  your  "modern  ideas,"  careless 
as  to  whether  they  conform  with  these  immitigable 
eternal  laws;  careless  as  to  whether  your  various 
utterances  are  consistent  with  each  other,  or  with 
plain  facts;  careless  as  to  whether  your  theories  can 
be  worked;  guided,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  by  only  two 

firm  intelligible  principles,  those  of  burning  down 

129 


130  My  Dear  Wells 

employers'  shops,  and  seizing  what  remains  of 
other  people's  property. 

If  you  will  take  the  trouble  to  examine  your  sys- 
tem of  social  philosophy,  you  will  find  that  it  is  based 
on  these  two  cardinal  principles.  You  tell  us  that 
as  a  young  man,  you  would  have  set  fire  to  your 
employer's  shop  if  you  had  not  been  convinced  that 
it  was  overinsured — perhaps  the  most  charming  of 
all  the  many  pieces  of  self-revelation  you  give  us  in 
your  papers  on  Russia. 

Now  my  dear  Wells,  I  have  not  a  word  to  say  in 
the  abstract  against  burning  down  employers'  shops. 
I  am  willing  to  consider  it  as  a  practical  way  of 
relieving  and  removing  social  wrongs.  Doubtless 
a  good  many  employers  richly  deserve  such  retribu- 
tion. I  have  only  one  question  to  ask  about  burning 
down  employers'  shops.  Does  it — to  use  the  current 
misleading  term — does  it  "reconstruct"  society  with 
advantage  to  working  men?  Very  obviously  it  does 
not.  Very  obviously  it  never  will.  It  merely 
deprives  the  workers  of  their  means  of  livelihood 
until  new  employers  get  new  capital  and  build  new 
shops.  Then  the  world  wags  again,  but  for  a  time 
less  comfortably  for  the  workers. 

But  why  not  do  away  with  employers  altogether? 
Ah!  that's  what  they  said  in  Russia. 

When  a  man  sits  down  to  think  for  other  people 
I  take  it  the  only  question  he  needs  ask  himself  is: 
"What  do  they  wish  to  believe?"    Great  numbers  of 


The  Foghorn  Tunes  Up  131 

our  population  wish  to  believe  that  burning  down 
their  employers'  shops  will  "reconstruct"  society  on 
a  basis  more  favourable  to  themselves.  Great  num- 
bers of  our  masses  have  had  this  doctrine  so  donged 
into  their  ears,  and  from  thence  into  the  vacuities 
of  their  cerebrums,  that  their  tongues  incessantly 
clatter  it  forth  as  the  first  axiom  of  political  science. 

When  I  say  "burning  down  employers'  shops,"  I 
use  it  as  a  generic  term  to  cover  all  those  many  sup- 
plementary devices  and  dishonesties  which,  especially 
since  the  war,  our  workers  have  been  encouraged  to 
practise  in  order  to  thwart  their  employers,  and  thus 
to  diminish  the  production  of  those  necessaries  upon 
which  their  own  livelihood  and  comfort  depend. 
Of  course  if  burning  down  our  employers'  shops 
does  actually  "reconstruct"  society,  it  is  clearly  a 
much  simpler  and  easier  method  than  the  old- 
fashioned  one  of  hard  work. 

Great  numbers  of  our  population  wish  to  believe 
in  this  new-fashioned  way  of  "reconstructing"  society 
according  to  "modern  ideas."  Great  numbers  of 
them  already  do  believe  in  it,  and  practise  it. 
Therefore  the  writer  who  "thinks  for"  these  masses, 
has  only  to  "think  for"  them  according  to  their  own 
wishes  and  notions  and  beliefs.  My  dear  Wells, 
how  enviable  and  easy  is  your  lot  compared  with 
mine!  As  we  go  through  your  reply  to  Mr. 
Churchill,  we  shall  find  that  the  149  lines  in  it  which 
are  given  to  the  exploitation  of  your  own  theories, 


132  My  Dear  Wells 

are  largely  Informed  and  coloured  by  this  kind  of 
"thinking." 

Further,  my  dear  Wells,  In  writing  these  letters 
to  you,  I  am  obliged  to  take  the  most  scrupulous 
care  not  to  misrepresent  you,  or  distort  facts  to  suit 
my  whimsies.  In  these  respects,  I  may  modestly 
claim  that  I  show  to  some  advantage  compared  with 
yourself.  For  whereas  I  have  been  sorrowfully 
compelled  to  point  out  to  you  a  large  number  of  your 
grievous  lapses,  self-contradictions  and  inconsisten- 
cies, you  have  so  far  been  able  to  detect  only  one 
trifling  displacement  of  an  adjective  in  the  entire 
course  of  my  letters  to  you.  When  I  was  so  negli- 
gent as  to  say  that  you  had  called  Lenin  the  "beloved 
Lenin,"  while  as  a  matter  of  fact  you  had  called  him 
"Lenin,  beloved,"  you  swooped  down  upon  me,  and 
branded  It  in  the  "New  York  Times"  as  "Just  a  lie," 
and  in  the  "London  Evening  Standard"  as  "an  out- 
and-out  lie."  I  was  greatly  reassured,  for  you  clearly 
showed  me  that  with  this  microscopic  exception,  I 
had  not  laid  myself  open  to  any  impeachment  in  my 
conduct  of  this  controversy. 

However,  you  did  well  to  put  me  on  my  guard. 
In  future  I  will  take  care  to  put  your  adjectives  on 
the  right  side  of  your  nouns.  You  have  given  me 
a  warning  that  it  will  be  dangerous  for  me  to  deviate 
a  hair's  breadth  from  the  strictest  accuracy  of  quo- 
tation and  the  most  searching  veracity  of  comment. 
When  I  try  to  imagine  what  names  you  would  have 


The  Foghorn  Tunes  Up         133 

called  me,  what  floods  of  vituperative  wrath  you 
would  have  poured  upon  me  if  I  had  really  misrep- 
resented you,  I  tremble  in  my  cuticle. 

I  will  be  more  careful  than  ever  not  to  mistake  or 
misconstrue  your  theories.  Of  course  I  cannot  help 
seeing  their  delightful  absurdity.  You  see  that 
yourself.  What?  You  don't?  My  dear  Wells,  in 
a  former  letter  we  thoroughly  thrashed  out  that 
question,  and  we  settled  that  you  did  see  the  absurd- 
ity of  your  whole  position.  I  really  cannot  allow 
you  to  reopen  the  matter.  Your  absurdity  remains 
the  one  changeless  established  immovable  fact  in  a 
world  of  ceaseless  change  and  flux  and  doubt. 
Believe  me,  it  is  the  very  pivot  of  your  entire  system 
of  social  and  political  philosophy. 

Having  shown  you  how  fettered  and  restricted  I 
am  compared  with  yourself,  inasmuch  as  I  feel  bound 
to  consider  carefully  every  statement  I  make,  we 
may  now  settle  down  to  the  examination  of  your 
reply  to  Mr.  Churchill.  Draw  up  your  chair  to  the 
table,  and  spread  out  your  copy  before  you.  We 
may  as  well  make  ourselves  quite  comfortable,  as, 
though  our  task  will,  I  trust,  be  both  pleasant  and 
profitable  to  us  both,  it  will  necessarily  be  rather 
lengthy  and  complicated. 

Of  course  Archibald  Spofforth  must  needs  intrude, 
and  seat  himself  in  the  easy  armchair  by  the  fireplace 
with  his  insufferable  air  of  insolent  cynicism  and 
brutal    contempt    for    yourself.      He    is    evidently 


134  ^^y  ^^^^  Wells 

determined  to  spoil  our  conference  If  you  give  him 
a  chance.  We  won't  take  any  notice  of  Spofforth. 
If  he  interferes  or  makes  any  objectionable  remarks, 
I'll  find  some  means  of  silencing  him. 

Now  if  you  are  quite  ready — 'Tenshun,  my  dear 
Wells. 

You  call  your  reply  to  Mr.  Churchill  "The  Anti- 
Bolshevik  Mind."  This  title  conveys  an  insinua- 
tion that  Anti-Bolsheviks  are  a  small  narrow  unrea- 
sonable sect  who  are  blindly  and  stupidly  prejudiced 
against  being  robbed  and  decimated  and  devastated 
by  such  men  as  Lenin.  You  begin,  "When  first  I 
read  our  'Mr.  Churchill's  reply  .  .  .  I  was  inclined 
to  leave  him  unanswered." 

I've  just  heard  Spofforth  mutter,  "Don't  you  wish 
you  had!"  And  perhaps  you  would  have  been  wise 
not  to  attempt  any  answer.  For  as  you  truthfully 
say,  "  'Reply'  there  was  none."  Nor  as  a  matter  of 
fact  did  you  make  any  reply  to  Mr.  Churchill,  except 
in  17  doubtful  lines  out  of  537 — "My  poor  observa- 
tions"— You  may  well  call  your  observations  "poor." 
Your  descriptions  of  what  you  actually  saw  were 
vivid  enough,  but  your  "observations,"  your  remarks 
and  comments  upon  what  you  saw — O  my  dear 
Wells ! 

"My  poor  observations  were  ignored."  Not  at 
all.  Bring  me  any  man  who  can  think  for  himself 
and  who  will  affirm  that  within  the  limits  of  his  one 
paper  Mr.  Churchill  ignored  any  of  the  main  ques- 


The  Foghorn  Tunes  Up         135 

tions  at  Issue.  "Mr.  Chupchill  has  not  even  noted 
that  I  do  not  ascribe  the  present  condition  of  Russia 
to  the  blockade."  Not  In  so  many  words.  But 
throughout  your  five  papers  you  Imply  that  the 
blockade  Is  a  most  potent  cause  of  Russia's  present 
desperate  condition.  Why  you  even  bring  your 
"dunnow-wheere-'e-are"  sailorman  as  evidence  to 
support  you. — "Instead  of  a  reply,  there  were  vehe- 
ment assertions  about  Russia  and  about  the  world 
generally," — That's  what  you  say.  You  talk,  my 
dear  Wells !     You  talk !     You  talk ! 

Have  you  ever  noticed  that  you  have  a  habit  of 
making  assertions  without  bringing  any  jot  of  evi- 
dence in  support  of  them?  For  Instance  you  say 
that  these  open  letters  of  mine  to  you  are  "mud- 
dled." That  doesn't  make  them  muddled,  does  It? 
You  have  been  able  to  find  only  one  misplaced 
adjective  in  them.  How  It  would  please  me  If  I 
could  say  that  you  are  a  clear,  logical,  precise,  pene- 
trating, candid  thinker  and  social  philosopher !  It 
would  make  my  heart  leap  with  joy.  Of  course  I 
could  say  it.  But  that  wouldn't  make  you  one,  would 
it?  You  would  still  remain  a  slave  to  your  theories, 
and  the  confused  misguided  leader  of  confused  mis- 
guided folk.  For  as  Doctor  Watts  profoundly 
remarks : 

**Let  dogs  delight  to  bark  and  bite 
For  God  has  made  them  so." 


136  My  Dear  Wells 

So  with  yourself.  Now  your  habit  of  making 
false  suggestions,  false  assumptions  and  statements 
which  you  cannot  prove,  is  very  prevalent  through- 
out this  reply  of  yours  to  Mr,  Churchill.  It  is  a 
thoroughly  bad  habit,  my  dear  Wells,  especially  in 
a  social  philosopher  of  your  pretensions.  In  spite 
of  Doctor  Watts'  dictum,  I  will  try  to  cure  you  of  it. 
I've  just  heard  Spofforth  growl  under  his  breath, 
"You'd  much  better  not  waste  any  more  time  upon 
him."  I've  thrown  Spofforth  a  look  of  cold  disdain 
that  I  hope  will  keep  him  quiet.  I  cannot  think  that 
Spofforth  wishes  to  see  you  reclaimed.  I  believe  he 
is  ill-natured  enough  to  hope  that  you  will  continue 
to  wander  in  the  mazes  of  your  theories,  and  perish 
an  unrepentant  enemy  of  your  country. 

Here  it  will  be  convenient  to  us  both,  if  adopting 
your  own  happy  description  of  my  office,  I  take  up 
my  duties  as  foghorn,  not  forgetting  that  I  am  also 
your  flapper — in  the  Laputan  sense. 

When  you  insinuate  a  false  suggestion,  I  shall  give 
out  three  "Toots";  gentle  toots  or  tremendous  toots, 
according  to  the  mischievousness  and  magnitude  of 
your  false  suggestion.  Toot  I  Toot !  Toot !  Like 
that. 

When  you  make  an  assumption  that  you  do  not 
and  cannot  prove,  and  try  to  impose  it  upon  the 
credulity  of  your  disciples  as  verified  fact,  I  shall 
give  out  three  warning  "Booms";  gentle  groaning 
booms,  or  noisy  furious  booms,  again  according  to 


The  Foghorn  Tunes  Up         137 

the  mischievousness  and  magnitude  of  your  false 
assumption.     Boom!     Boom!     Boom!     Like  that. 

When  you  make  some  glib  statement  upon  your 
own  unsupported  authority,  I  shall  give  out  three 
"Hoots";  gentle  subdued  hoots,  or  emphatic  ter- 
rific hoots,  according  as  your  statement  is  merely 
doubtful  or  plainly  false.  Hoot!  Hoot!  Hoot! 
Like  that. 

When  you  instil  and  exploit  your  own  theories  as 
workable,  approved  and  tested  principles  of  govern- 
ment, I  shall  make  the  foghorn  howl  and  howl  and 
howl,  till  it  almost  cracks  itself  with  wrathful  alarm. 
There  will  be  no  gentle  howls  over  your  theories, 
my  dear  Wells,  but  only  fearful,  prolonged,  inces- 
sant, deep  mouthed  baying,  as  from  a  faithful  watch- 
dog who  proclaims  danger  to  the  household  under 
his  charge.  Howl-00-oo-howl — 00-00-00-howl-oo- 
howl — 00-00-howl-oo-oo-oo-oo-howl — ad  lib.  Like 
that. 

We  have  now  arranged  our  code  of  fog  signals, 
which  I  hope  you  understand.  You  will  be  able  to 
recognize  what  kind  of  mistake  you  have  made, 
according  to  the  different  kind  of  sound  which  the 
foghorn  emits.  If  you  are  ready,  I'll  tune  up. 
Toot!  Boom!  Hoot!  Howl!  The  "damned 
thing,"  as  you  call  It,  seems  to  be  in  good  working 
order.  I'll  make  it  speak.  I'll  make  it  trumpet  far 
out  to  sea,  and  warn  the  fog-bound,  "dunnow- 
wheere-'e-are"  mariners,  "Beware  the  dreadful  sue- 


138  My  Dear  Wells 

cubus !  Beware  the  quicksands  of  Internationalism  1 
Beware  the  maelstrom  of  Bolshevism!" 

Now  let  us  take  up  the  thread  of  your  reply  to 
Mr.  Churchill. 

" exactly  the  assertions  that  Mr.  Churchill, 

inattentive  to  any  reality,  unteachahle  by  any  expe- 
rience'* Toot !  Toot !  Toot !  Boom !  Boom !  Boom  1 
"has  been  making  for  the  past  two  years"  Accord- 
ing to  you,  about  two  years  ago  Mr.  Churchill  sud- 
denly became  inattentive  to  any  reality,  and  un- 
teachahle by  any  experience.  Alas,  my  dear  Wells, 
have  you  not  been  the  victim  of  this  same  malady 
for  much  longer  than  two  years.  Indeed  congenitally 
afflicted  with  It  all  your  life?  "It  is  true  there  was 
an  air  of  replying"  HOOT!  HOOT!  HOOT! 
My  dear  Wells,  Mr.  Churchill  did  reply  to  you 
most  convincingly.  "Although  I  am  an  older  man 
than  Mr.  Churchill," — What  has  that  to  do  with 
the  matters  In  dispute?  " — and  have  spewt  most  of 
my  time  watching  and  thinking  about  a  world — " 
With  the  sorry  result  that  you  seem  always  to  think 
against  your  own  country,  and  In  favour  of  Interna- 
tional chaos.  Would  not  your  time  have  been  more 
usefully  spent  In  your  original  occupation,  quelling 
your  Impulse  to  set  your  employer's  shop  on  fire, 
and  since  you  were  taking  his  money  for  your  ser- 
vices, honestly  trying  to  serve  him,  even  If  he  were 
a  bad  employer?  There  were  ameliorations  of 
your  lot,  such  as  occasionally  serving  pretty  girls 


The  Foghorn  Tunes  Up  139 

with  ribbons  and  finery,  and  other  articles  of  femi- 
nine adornment. 

" — In  a  world  which  he  (Mr.  Churchill)  has  been 
rushing  vehemently  from  one  excitement  to  an- 
other." Toot!  Toot!  Toot!  Gentle  toots,  but 
still  unmistakable  toots. — "he  has  the  impudence." 
Impudence !  You  can  easily  beat  him  at  that.  The 
next  time  Mr.  Churchill  shows  you  any  impudence, 
send  him  a  letter  in  the  tone  and  style  of  the  letters 
you  write  to  me. — "to  twit  me  with  superficiality." — 
If  he  only  twits  you,  my  dear  Wells,  I  should  let 
him  twit.  Suppose  he  begins  to  study  your  works 
as  I  am  doing,  how  then?  Be  thankful  to  anyone 
who  only  twits  you.  Look  at  Spofforth  seated  there 
by  the  fire,  glaring  and  scowling  at  you,  waiting  his 
chance  to  make  a  pounce.  Spofforth  won't  twit  you. 
— "He  (Mr.  Churchill)  makes  the  cheap  debating 
society  point  against  me — "  Would  you  say  that  the 
"points"  you  are  here  making  against  Mr.  Churchill 
are  on  quite  so  high  a  level  as  that  of  a  cheap  debat- 
ing society?  " — that  I  have  written  an  outline  of  the 
world's  history. — "  In  this,  Mr.  Churchill  is  ill- 
advised  and  wrong.  He  should  encourage  you  to 
write,  not  only  complete  world  histories,  but  com- 
plete manuals  of  controversial  etiquette,  complete 
cookery  books,  complete  anything  and  everything 
that  will  keep  you  off  your  International  whimsies. 
" — as  though  that  convicted  me  of  presumption." 
Never  mind  what  any  of  us  convict  you  of,  my  dear 


140  My  Dear  Wells 

Wells.  You  "hit  back"  by  calling  us  all  "silly"  and 
thus  draw  your  readers  away  from  the  matter  in 
dispute.  "//  is  as  silly  as  charging  a  painter  with 
presumption  for  sketching  a  wide  landscape  instead 
of  painting  a  bunch  of  flowers."  You  talkl  You 
talk!  As  the  schoolboys  say,  "On  to  the  ball!" 
"From  a  gentleman  who  has  with  unshaken  confi' 
dence  undertaken  Admiralty,  the  guidance  of  our 
home  affairs,  and  most  other  great  public  concerns, 
it' is  ridiculous."  TOOT!  TOOT!  TOOT!  My 
dear  Wells,  you  have  managed  the  affairs  of  whole 
continents — on  paper.  Mr.  Churchill  has  at  least 
had  many  years  of  varied  experience  in  the  actual 
responsible  government  of  the  people.  He  must 
have  learned  what  you  seem  never  even  to  suspect, 
that  men  and  women  will  not  change  their  natural 
instincts  and  propensities,  remodel  their  conduct  and 
forsake  their  own  palpable  interests  in  order  to 
establish  the  theories  you  have  hatched  in  your  head. 
I  do  wish  you  would  persuade  Lenin  to  give  him- 
self a  fortnight's  holiday  while  you  take  a  turn  at 
the  practical  government  of  mankind. 

"But  Mr.  Churchill  makes  his  point  in  entire 
honesty."  I  am  always  uncertain  what  you  mean 
when  you  speak  of  "honesty."  There  is  the  new 
kind  of  honesty  which  you  and  Lenin  have  in- 
vented. In  respect  of  the  old  and  now  almost  ob- 
solete kind  of  honesty  embodied  in  the  eighth 
commandment,  you  seem  to  me  to  be  standing  on 


The  Foghorn  Tunes  Up         141 

your  head.  "He  does  not  think  I  have  any  right 
to  a  view  of  the  world  as  a  whole."  TOOT! 
TOOT!  TOOT!  How  can  Mr.  Churchill  stop 
you  from  taking  a  view  of  the  world  as  a  whole? 
Why  not  set  to  work  and  do  so,  instead  of  taking 
merely  distorted  topsy-turvy  snapshots  of  it? 
"He  believes  quite  naively  that  he  belongs  to  a 
peculiarly  gifted  and  privileged  class  of  beings." 
Toot!  and  Toot!  and  Toot!  again.  How  do  you 
know  what  Mr.  Churchill  believes  about  himself? 
It  is  plain  that  you  believe  "quite  naively"  that  you 
are  a  "peculiarly  gifted"  social  philosopher.  At 
least  that  is  the  attitude  you  adopt  towards  Mr. 
Churchill.  I  believe  that  you  are — what  I  am  try- 
ing to  convey  in  these  letters.  Now  whether  you  are 
right  or  wrong  in  your  estimate  of  Mr.  Churchill, 
I  will  not  here  dispute.  But  let  me  tell  you,  in  all 
gentleness,  very  sorrowfully  but  very  firmly,  that 
you  are  quite  wrong  in  your  estimate  of  yourself. 
" — beings  to  whom  the  lives  and  affairs  of  common 
men  are  given  over,  the  raw  material  for  brilliant 
careers."  Toot !  Toot !  Toot !  Why  not  call  him 
a  bloated  aristocrat  outright?  ''//  seems  to  him  an 
act  of  insolence — "  Toot!  Toot!  Toot!  " — that  a 
common  man  like  myself — " 

Might  you  not  have  left  this  point  in  doubt,  not 
classifying  yourself  quite  so  definitely,  but  allowing 
us  some  latitude  of  speculation  about  it,  letting  your 
status  as  it  were  ooze  out  from  you?    There  is  some 


142  My  Dear  Wells 

little  savour  of  brag,  my  dear  Wells,  in  this  unblush- 
ing assertion  of  yourself  as  a  common  man.  Why 
not  let  it  be  guessed  at,  suspected,  surmised,  held  in 
suspense  in  our  minds,  and  then  at  the  right  moment 
proclaimed  by  some  unmistakable  act  of  yours  which 
could  allow  us  no  further  doubt  as  to  your  class? 

But  perhaps  you  wished  to  mark  a  contrast 
between  yourself  and  Mr.  Churchill,  who  you  say 
is  not  only  a  reckless,  ambitious,  vehement  politician, 
but  is  also  guilty  of  being  connected  with  the  peer- 
age. This  in  itself  goes  far  to  prove  that  he  is 
utterly  unfit  to  hold  any  place  in  any  government. 
Indeed  it  is  conclusive  evidence  not  only  of  political 
incapacity,  but  of  moral  worthlessness,  to  many  of 
those  whom  you  are  "thinking  for."  And  you 
mustn't  lose  your  hold  upon  them. 

You  go  on  to  say  that  it  seems  to  Mr.  Churchill 
an  act  of  insolence  that  a  common  man  like  yourself 
"should  form  judgements  upon  matters  of  states- 
craft."  TOOT!  TOOT!  TOOT!  HOOTl 
HOOT!  HOOT!  So  far  is  Mr.  Churchill  from 
thinking  it  an  act  of  insolence  that  a  common  man 
like  you  should  form  judgments  upon  matters  of 
statescraft,  that,  in  his  clearly  reasoned  paper  which 
you  are  here  professing  to  answer,  he  praises  the 
political  system  under  which  common  men  through- 
out the  country  have  chosen  "a  lad  from  a  Welsh 
village  to  be  Prime  Minister  of  Great  Britain,  and 
the  leading  figure  in  Europe."     I  really  must  give 


The  Foghorn  Tunes  Up         143 

forth  another  loud  and  prolonged  HOOT!  when 
your  giant  mind  monstrously  delivers  itself  of  so 
palpably  false  an  assertion.  There's  a  gathering 
look  of  anger  on  Spofforth's  face.  Perhaps  you 
had  better  move  your  chair  a  little  farther  away 
from  him.  One  or  two  more  such  statements  from 
you,  and  I  may  not  be  able  to  restrain  him  from 
doing  you  an  injury. 

" — should  venture  to  dispute  the  horrible  waste  of 
human  life  and  hope — our  lives  and  hopes  and  the 
future  of  our  children."  TOOT !  TOOT !  TOOT  1 
BOOM!  BOOM!  BOOM!  HOOT!  HOOT! 
HOOT!  HOWL-OO-HOWL— 00-HOWLI 

I  would  have  thought  it  impossible  to  pack  into 
the  three  sentences  which  I  am  analyzing,  so  much 
false  insinuation,  false  suggestion,  false  assumption 
and  false  statement  as  you  bave  contrived  to  pack 
into  their  small  space.  Let  us  have  another  look  at 
these  sentences. 

You  say  (false  statements)  that  Mr.  Churchill 
does  not  think  that  you  have  any  right  to  view  the 
world  as  a  whole,  and  that  he  considers  it  an  act  of 
insolence  for  a  common  man  to  form  judgments  upon 
matters  of  statescraft.  You  insinuate  that  he  does 
this  because  he  is  an  aristocrat,  and  is  therefore 
naturally  and  congenitally  Incapable  of  regarding 
the  "lives  and  affairs  of  common  men"  except  "as 
raw  material  given  over  to  him  to  make  a  brilliant 
career."     Here  you  make  the  false  suggestion  that 


144  ^^y  I^^^r  Wells 

all  aristocrats  naively  regard  all  common  men  in  this 
light,  and  you  thereby  create  a  class  hatred  in  the 
minds  of  those  whom  you  are  "thinking  for."  You 
inflame  them  against  all  aristocrats,  whether  indi- 
vidual aristocrats  are  good  or  bad  citizens,  whether 
or  not  they  are  working  for  the  welfare  of  their 
country  and  the  interest  of  all  classes. 

You  go  on  to  make  the  further  and  darker  false 
statement  that  Mr.  Churchill  thinks  it  an  act  of 
insolence  that  you  should  "venture  to  dispute  the 
horrible  waste  of  human  life  and  hope — our  lives 
and  hopes  and  the  future  of  our  children  .  .  ."  In 
these  words  you  make  the  false  suggestion  that  Mr. 
Churchill,  in  contrast  to  yourself,  approves  of  a 
"horrible  waste  of  human  life  and  hope,"  and  is 
actively  engaged  in  sacrificing  "our  lives  and  hopes 
and  the  future  of  our  children" — suggesting  this, 
and  in  the  same  words,  suggesting  that  you  are 
beneficently  engaged  in  withstanding  him,  and  that 
you  are  protecting  "our  lives  and  hopes  and  the 
future  of  our  children"  from  his  baleful  practices 
against  them. 

Further,  my  dear  Wells,  in  the  same  few  short 
words,  you  make  the  monstrous  assumption  that 
"our  lives  and  hopes  and  the  future  of  our  children" 
are  to  be  saved  from  Mr.  Churchill's  malignant 
activities  by  the  promulgation  of  your  International 
and  Collcctivist  theories.  For  I  know  not  that  you 
have  taken  any  other,  any  active  practical  means  to 


The  Foghorn  Tunes  Up         145 

save  ''our  lives  and  hopes  and  the  future  of  our 
children,"  beyond  writing  papers  backing  up  Lenin, 
and  inciting  your  fellow  citizens  towards  revolution 
and  the  establishment  of  an  International  govern- 
ment. You  do  not  give  us  the  least  hint  by  what 
conceivable  process  the  copious  publication  of  your 
theories  will  save  "our  lives  and  hopes  and  the 
future  of  our  children."  Are  you  taking  any  other, 
any  practical  steps  to  rescue  "our  lives  and  hopes 
and  the  future  of  our  children?"  If  you  are  not 
taking  such  steps,  why  do  you  most  irrelevantly, 
with  sublimest  audacity  of  self-delusion,  with  blind- 
est disregard  of  facts,  with  no  care  except  for  a 
shout  of  applause  from  the  crowded  gallery  of  your 
unthinking  disciples, — why  in  the  name  of  all  that 
is  honest  in  controversy,  do  you  pose  as  the  saviour 
of  human  lives  and  hopes  and  the  future  of  our 
children? 

Before  we  accept  you  as  a  saviour  of  human  hopes 
and  lives  and  the  future  of  children  in  any  part  of 
the  world,  we  will  ask  what  are  your  feelings  toward 
the  men  who  have  caused  the  enormous  waste  of 
human  lives  and  hopes  in  Russia,  who  have  sentenced 
millions  of  helpless  babes  to  hunger,  marasmus, 
idiocy,  disease  and  untimely  death,  by  governing 
Russia  on  what  you  carefully  explain  to  us  are  false 
and  unworkable  Marxian  theories.  Oh  but  you  say, 
these  millions  of  lives  were  sacrificed  in  the  sacred 
cause  of  Internationalism.     It  is  true  you  tell  us  that 


146  My  Dear  Wells 

they  were  sacrificed  to  a  false  and  vicious  theory,  but 
what  does  that  matter?  It  was  an  International 
theory.  Therefore  these  millions  of  lives  don't 
count  as  waste  with  you.  You  counsel  us  to  make 
haste  and  save  our  own  lives  and  hopes  and  the 
future  of  our  children  by  supporting  Bolshevism, 
and  at  the  same  time  starting  to  govern  our  own 
country  on  some  other  International  theory  which 
you  have  hatched  in  your  head,  and  which  you 
assume  will  work,  without  giving  us  the  least  shadow 
of  proof  that  it  will  not  sacrifice  as  many  lives  and 
hopes,  and  destroy  as  many  babes  as  Bolshevism 
itself. 

So  you  abuse  the  men  who  are  governing  your  own 
country,  and  you  embrace  the  man  whom  you  have 
called  a  rotten  little  incessant  egotistical  intriguer 
deserving  to  be  killed  by  some  moral  sanitary 
authority — you  embrace  this  man  who  has  been 
largely  responsible  for  this  multitudinous  murder 
and  waste  of  human  lives  and  hopes,  you  palliate  his 
crimes,  you  extol  his  "creative  effort,"  you  counsel 
the  Americans  to  support  him  in  governing  Russia 
by  his  vicious  unworkable  principles.  And  to  multi- 
ply and  crown  your  absurdities  you  pose  as  a  saviour 
of  human  lives  and  hopes  and  the  future  of  our 
children.  TOOT!  BOOM!  HOOT  I  HOWL! 
Cease  not,  O  foghorn,  to  send  your  warning  message 
as  far  as  there  are  men's  ears  to  receive  it. 

I  have  examined  at  great  length  these  three  sen- 


The  Foghorn  Tunes  Up  147 

tences  in  your  reply  to  Mr.  Churchill.  I  have  shown 
what  they  really  amount  to,  what  they  signify  to  men 
who  can  think  for  themselves.  Upon  the  minds  of 
those  who  cannot  think  for  themselves,  who  allow 
you  to  do  their  thinking  for  them,  who  take  what- 
ever you  write  at  its  spurious  face  value,  you  have 
left  the  impression  that  you  are  not  only  a  profound 
social  philosopher  with  a  sovereign  panacea  for  the 
miseries  and  disorders  of  the  world,  but  that  you 
are  also  a  beneficent  philanthropist,  protecting  our 
lives  and  hopes  and  the  future  of  our  children  from 
a  body  of  wicked  aristocrats  who  are  bent  upon 
destroying  them.  You  have  thus  gained  great  per- 
sonal prestige,  and  you  have  fomented  that  unrea- 
soning class  hatred  which  if  it  gains  its  ends  will 
bring  untold  misery  to  all  classes,  but  chiefly  to  the 
poorer  classes.  So  it  has  been  in  Russia.  For  it  is 
always  upon  the  poorer  classes,  the  working  classes^ 
that^  national  mistakes  are  most  heavily  visited.  You 
don't  think  that  class  hatred  is  a  national  mistake? 
Think  again,  and  think  a  little  more  carefully. 

Just  one  more  point,  to  finish  off  the  sentence.  You 
accuse  Mr.  Churchill  of  a  "frantic  anti-Russian  pol- 
icy." Hoot!  Hoot!  Hoot!  Mr.  Churchill's  policy 
is  not  anti-Russian.  It  is  anti-Bolshevist,  anti- 
Internationalist,  pro-British.  Your  own  policy  is 
anti-British,  pro-Bolshevist,  pro-Internationalist.  Yet 
here  you  imply  that  you  are  pro-Russian,  in  oppo- 
sition to  Mr.  Churchill,  who  you  say  is  anti-Russian. 


148  My  Dear  Wells 

How  is  it  that  Pacifists  and  Internationalists  are 
always  fervent  Patriots  in  respect  of  other  coun- 
tries, and  fervent  Internationalists  in  respect  of 
their  own  country?  Find  me  an  answer  to  this 
riddle. 

Adhesively  yours, 

Henry  Arthur  Jones. 
New  York, 
6  February,  1921. 


LETTER  TWELVE. 

THE  FLAPPER  FLAPS  AND  THE 
FOGHORN  HOWLS. 

My  Dear  Wells, — 

In  my  last  letter  I  dissected  63  of  the  537  lines 
which  your  reply  to  Mr.  Churchill  contains.  In 
these  first  63  lines  there  is  not  one  word  of  argu- 
ment. You  have  carefully  shunned  the  four  ques- 
tions which  I  showed  in  my  ninth  letter  (page 
103)  were  the  matters  of  dispute  between  you 
and  him.  You  have  merely  made  an  attack  on 
Mr.  Churchill's  private  and  political  motives  and 
character,  and  presented  him  in  violent  contrast 
to  yourself.  By  adopting  these  tactics,  you  have 
established  yourself,  in  the  minds  of  all  readers 
who  cannot  think  for  themselves,  as  a  profound 
social  and  political  philosopher,  a  lofty  disinter- 
ested philanthropist  who  is  offering  a  free  admis- 
sion to  an  International  paradise  to  them  and  to 
millions  of  their  dear  sweet  little  unborn  babes. 
In  the  same  unthinking  minds,  you  have  established 
Mr.  Churchill  as  a  reckless,  wicked,  bloodthirsty 
aristocrat,  consumed  with  a  lust  to  "waste  human 

lives  and  hopes,"   and  waiting  like   the   great  red 

149 


150  My  Dear  Wells 

dragon  in  Revelations  to  devour  unborn  babes — an 
unscrupulous  member  of  a  privileged  class  of  beings 
against  whom  you,  a  common  man,  appeal  to  the 
other  common  men  of  the  kingdom,  not  to  let  him 
waste  their  lives  and  hopes  and  devour  their  unborn 
babes.  And  the  common  men  of  the  kingdom,  not 
wishing  to  have  their  lives  and  hopes  wasted  and 
their  unborn  babes  devoured  by  Mr.  Churchill,  vote 
for  your  attractive  alternative  of  an  International 
Collectivist  paradise  which  will  open  to  them  of  its 
own  accord  if  they  will  simply  embrace  your  theories. 

Such  are  the  results  of  our  analysis  of  the  first 
63  lines  of  your  reply.  There  remain  474  lines  for 
us  yet  to  examine.  My  dear  Wells,  I  hope  I  have 
convinced  you  that  I  do  not  intend  to  shirk  my  duty 
to  you.  But  the  last  three  sentences  which  we  have 
examined  have  taken  up  an  inordinate  amount  of  our 
available  time.  Suppose  that  I  had  resolved  to  sub- 
ject all  the  sentences  in  your  five  papers  on  Russia 
to  the  same  minute  and  searching  analysis  indeed 
which  they  invited.  By  this  time  we  should  scarcely 
have  got  to  the  end  of  the  first  paper.  From  this 
you  will  be  able  to  estimate  how  lightly  and  leniently 
I  have  dealt  with  you. 

Not  that  I  shrink  from  the  full  examination  of 
these  474  remaining  lines.  A  mere  glance  through 
them  shows  that  they  will  amply  repay  all  the  loving 
care  and  attention  that  we  may  bestow  them.  But 
there  are  other  considerations.     You  complain  that 


Flapper  Flaps — Foghorn  Howls     151 

I  have  not  read  your  other  writings.  I  am  eager  to 
examine  them.  I  am  told  that  in  "God  the  Ever- 
lasting King"  you  have  said  some  very  remarkable 
things  about  religion.  Of  course  Spofforth  must 
needs  ejaculate  a  jeering  laugh.  He  has  read  it, 
and  he  says  it  is  "bunk."  Since  Norfolk  has  been  in 
the  United  States,  he  admits  some  very  questionable 
words  into  his  vocabulary.  Granted  that  "God  the 
Everlasting  King"  is  "bunk,"  Spofforth  needn't  have 
said  so  in  that  offensive  monosyllable.  He  might 
have  put  it  in  a  kinder,  politer  way.  I  shall  read  it 
myself,  and  if  I  find  that  it  is  not  "bunk,"  I  shall 
handle  Spofforth  very  severely. 

Then  Mr.  Hilaire  Belloc  says  your  "Outline  of 
History"  is — well,  he  doesn't  say  that  it  is  "bunk." 
Perhaps  he  hasn't  heard  the  word,  and  perhaps  he 
wouldn't  use  it  if  he  had.  But  Belloc  does  say  that 
a  large  part  of  your  "Outline  of  History"  is  bad 
history,  and  quite  untrustworthy  in  many  of  its  facts 
and  conclusions.  I  suppose  that,  as  in  social  philos- 
ophy, when  a  common  man  like  yourself  sets  out  to 
write  history  for  common  people,  his  business  is  to 
ask  himself  what  they  would  like  to  believe,  and 
then  to  write  his  history  accordingly.  This  is  what 
Belloc  says  you  have  done.  He  seems  to  think 
history  ought  to  be  written  in  some  other  way,  and 
this  prejudices  him  against  your  book.  I  have  an 
uneasy  feeling  that  I  ought  to  look  at  your  "Outline 
of  History" — not  to  read  it  thoroughly,  but  just  to 


152  My  Dear  Wells 

skim  off  any  fallacies  that  may  be  floating  on  the 
surface. 

There  Is  another  consideration.  Not  only  do  my 
obligations  to  you  increase  with  respect  to  what  you 
have  written  in  the  past,  but  I  may  be  incurring  fresh 
obligations  with  respect  to  what  you  are  writing 
now,  and  may  write  in  the  future.  How  do  I  know 
in  what  fresh  direction  you  may  go  woolgathering? 
At  any  moment  you  may  offer  me  such  a  tempting 
fresh  exhibition  of  "modern  ideas"  for  my  examina- 
tion that  I  shall  not  be  able  to  resist  their  instant 
discussion  with  you.  I  must  have  a  margin  of  time 
to  meet  such  a  contingency.  I  repeat  that  In  view 
of  other  responsibilities,  three  years  is  the  longest 
period  that  I  can  set  apart  to  cure  you  of  your 
International  whimsies  and  to  make  a  good  loyal 
British  citizen  of  you.  To  do  this  thoroughly,  it  is 
not  enough  to  teach  you  that  burning  down  employ- 
ers' shops,  stealing  silver  teapots,  "collecting"  other 
people's  property,  and  fraternizing  with  the  avowed 
enemies  of  your  country  with  the  object  of  provoking 
a  social  revolution — It  Is  not  enough  to  teach  you 
that  these  activities  cannot  form  the  basis  of  any 
social  order,  but  can  only  lead  towards  universal 
misery,  starvation  and  anarchy.  When  I  have 
taught  you  this  lesson — a  very  hard  one,  I  admit, 
for  you  to  learn — I  shall  also  have  to  show  you  that 
social  order  of  any  kind  in  any  state  depends  almost 
entirely  upon  a  general  obedience  of  all  classes  to 


Flapper  Flaps — Foghorn  Howls     153 

certain  ancient  changeless  rules  of  private  conduct, 
and  to  certain  ancient  eternal  first  principles  of 
government.  Considering  the  opposition  in  your 
mind  to  these  ancient  rules  and  principles,  I  fear  a 
great  portion  of  our  three  years  is  already  mort- 
gaged. We  shall  have  to  economize  the  precious 
moments  we  spend  over  your  reply  to  Mr.  Winston 
Churchill,  alluring  as  the  subject  is.  Before  we 
resume  our  inquiry,  let  us  call  to  mind  that  its  main 
object  is  to  ascertain  your  capacity  to  "think  for" 
other  people,  and  the  quality  of  the  thought  that 
you  are  "thinking"  for  them. 

'Tenshun,  my  dear  Wells  1  The  foghorn  is  in 
good  working  order,  and  my  flapper's  rod  with  its 
bladder  attached  is  by  my  side.  You  have  kept  me 
so  busy  with  the  foghorn,  that  I  have  scarcely  had  a 
chance  to  serve  you  as  flapper — in  the  Laputan 
sense.  I  take  up  my  instrument  of  office,  swing  it 
over  my  shoulder,  and  prepare  to  give  you  a  resound- 
ing slap  with  the  bladder.  For,  my  dear  Wells, 
all  through  this  reply  to  Mr.  Churchill,  you  are 
so  oblivious  of  the  matters  you  are  discussing  with 
him,  so  intent  upon  proving  him  to  be  a  villain, 
and  upon  pushing  your  own  theories,  that  I  must 
try  to  wake  you  up  to  the  realities  of  your  situation. 
Please  to  turn  back  to  Letter  Nine,  page  103.  I 
have  there  plainly  set  down  the  groups  of  questions 
which  form  the  subject  matter  of  your  debate  with 
Mr.  Churchill.     Please  to  read  them  over  carefully. 


154  My  ^^^^  Wells 

1  take  my  aim — Pop !  That  was  a  good  stroke, 
wasn't  it?  Did  you  feel  it?  Has  it  roused  you? 
Has  it  purged  your  vision  and  shown  you  what  you 
are  arguing  about? 

My  dear  Wells,  except  in  two  short  passages 
amounting  to  17  lines,  you  never  approach  these 
vital  questions  which  you  are  pretending  to  discuss, 
which  alone  are  worth  serious  discussion,  and  which 
so  urgently  demand  our  most  searching  inquiry. 

If  to  save  time,  I  spare  you  a  minute  examination 
of  the  remaining  474  lines,  will  you  take  my  word 
that  they  contain  as  great  a  proportion  of  irrele- 
vancies,  misrepresentations,  fallacies,  false  insinua- 
tions, false  suggestions,  unproved  and  false  asser- 
tions, and  outrageous  assumptions  as  the  63  lines 
which  I  have  already  examined?  Or  will  you  insist 
that  I  shall  dissect  every  remaining  sentence  with 
the  same  diligent  care  that  I  have  given  to  the  last 
three  sentences?  It  is  for  you  to  say.  Let  me  hear 
from  you  on  this  point. 

Meantime  I  proceed  to  review  the  most  flagrant 
and  salient  delinquencies  in  the  succeeding  474  lines. 
For  21  lines  you  continue  to  abuse  Mr.  Churchill,  in 
a  succession  of  mixed  metaphors.  He  is  a  "running 
sore  of  waste" ;  he  has  "smeared  his  vision  with 
human  blood"  (what  a  shocking  contrast  to  "Lenin, 
beloved"!).  At  the  same  time  his  "display  of 
vision,"  whatever  that  may  mean,  is  "merely  comic." 
He  seems  to  be  performing  some  wonderful  optical 


Flapper  Flaps — Foghorn  Howls     15^ 

feats.  While  smearing  his  vision  with  human  blood, 
and  doing  other  queer  things  with  his  eyes,  he  "poses 
as  a  statesman." 

"He  does  not  stand  alone."  This  Is  rather 
cryptic,  and  to  me  very  suspicious.  Evidently  It  Is 
all  part  of  his  wicked  design  to  waste  human  lives 
and  hopes.  You  may  well,  in  the  next  line,  describe 
his  vision  as  "grotesque  and  distorted/'  but  you  get 
cryptic  again  when  you  go  on  to  say  that  this  vision 
"w  no  more  and  no  less  contemptible  than  some 
misshapen  idol — "  I  cannot  follow  the  equation,  but 
the  phrase  would  make  a  splendid  caption  in  a  film 
play. 

My  dear  Wells,  I  could  feast  for  a  week  on  this 
metaphor  pie  of  yours  if  we  had  the  time. 

It  seems  that  this  misshapen  Idol  Is  esteemed  by 
some  tribe  or  other  "to  which  we  may  presently  see 
our  children  sacrificed."  Now  I  get  you  !  You  want 
to  raise  a  bogey,  and  frighten  the  common  people 
that  Mr.  Churchill  Is  setting  on  some  savage  tribe 
to  devour  their  unborn  babes  !  Cease  !  Cease  !  Our 
unborn  babes  may  Indeed  be  sacrificed  if  your 
International  theories  prevail.  Turn  again  to 
Russia,  and  count  the  millions  of  babes  that  have 
been  sacrificed  to  a   false  International  theory. 

In  the  41  following  lines,  you  summarize  In  a 
perverse  heavy  satirical  way,  Mr.  Churchill's  rapid 
survey  of  European  civilization  before  19 14.  It 
may  have  been  a  bad  world  to  live  In  during  those 


156  My  Dear  Wells 

years,  but,  my  dear  Wells,  compare  It  with  the  state 
of  Russia  under  International  government  as  de- 
scribed in  your  first  two  papers !  You  may  claim 
that  these  41  lines  have  some  remote  connection  with 
the  questions  you  are  disputing  with  Mr.  Churchill. 
I  shall  say  that  they  contain  no  word  of  argument 
on  the  matters  in  debate.  They  draw  your  readers 
away  from  them.  So  I  pick  up  my  flapper's  rod, 
and  I  take  my  aim.  Pop  I  Right  on  the  spot  again ! 
Attend,  my  dear  Wells,  to  the  serious  business 
before  us. 

After  15  lines  sympathetically  and  perversely 
describing  the  advent  of  the  Bolsheviks  to  power, 
you  suddenly  illuminate  the  whole  situation  by  saying 
that  the  Bolsheviks  "at  once  set  about  killing  people." 
You  add,  however,  "with  a  freedom  that  had  hitherto 
been  reserved  for  their  betters."  TOOT !  TOOT ! 
TOOTl  BOOM!  BOOM!  BOOM!  HOOT! 
HOOT!  HOOT!  It  is  a  venomous  ins?huation  of 
class  hatred.  In  all  ranks,  in  all  armies,  officers  and 
men  have  been  sacrificed  and  have  sacrificed  them- 
selves, not  because  they  wanted  to  kill,  but  because 
they  had  to  defend  their  country,  or  perish  with  their 
country.  In  England  we  would  not  recruit  the  hun- 
dreds of  thousands  that  Lord  Roberts  implored  us 
to  recruit.     We  had  to  recruit  eight  millions. 

When  you  further  make  a  sneering  allusion  to 
those  who  died  at  Gallipoli,  a  mere  handful  com- 
pared with  the  myriads  who,  directly  or  indirectly, 


Flapper  Flaps — Foghorn  Howls     157 

have  perished  or  shall  perish  from  Bolshevik  mis- 
rule, I  strike  you  with  the  rod  of  contempt  of  all 
who  can  think  and  judge  for  themselves,  and  I  set 
hooting  and  howling  at  you  all  the  warning  voices 
that  can  save  infatuated  men  from  pursuing  a  delu- 
sion to  their  own  destruction.  Gallipoli  was  a  terri- 
ble mistake.  So  was  Balaclava.  All  wars  are  full 
of  terrible  mistakes.  You  condemn  Gallipoli. 
Naturally.  It  was  fought  for  the  defence  of  your 
country.  That  makes  it  a  crime  in  your  eyes.  You 
palliate  and  excuse  the  massacres  in  Russia.  Nat- 
urally. They  were  committed  in  furtherance  of 
an  International  Scheme.  That  justifies  them  in 
your  eyes,  and  makes  them  a  virtuous  necessity. 

Let  me  show  you  the  difference  in  the  quality  of 
these  two  sacrifices  of  human  life.  Gallipoli  was 
the  largely  voluntary  offering  of  her  sons  by  a  loyal 
colony  to  the  mother  country,  and  declared  the 
affection  of  that  colony  to  the  British  Empire,  its 
pride  in  being  a  part  of  it.  Gallipoli  was  fought 
by  men  in  arms  against  armed  enemies,  according  to 
the  rules  of  civilized  warfare,  with  the  understand- 
ing, consent  and  enthusiastic  devotion  of  its  victims 
to  a  cause  for  which  they  willingly  laid  down  their 
lives.  The  Russian  massacres  were  mere  butchery 
and  murder  of  helpless  innocent  folk,  many  of  them 
women  and  children,  driven  to  brutal  indiscriminate 
slaughter.  They  had  no  arms;  they  had  no  means 
of  defence;  there  was  no  pretence  of  trial.     They 


158  My  Dear  Wells 

were  simply  put  to  agonizing  torture  and  death  by 
their  own  countrymen  in  defiance  of  all  law  and  all 
humanity. 

Now  let  me  show  you  the  difference  in  the  results 
of  Gallipoli  and  the  Russian  massacres.  Gallipoli, 
terrible  as  was  its  sacrifice  of  brave  lives,  did  in  some 
measure  contribute  to  the  final  victory,  and  by  that 
victory,  you,  my  dear  Wells,  as  we  must  never  for- 
get, are  now  in  the  peaceful  possession  of  your  motor 
car  and  your  cosy  dividends — until  such  times  as 
your  own  International  theories  are  put  into  practice. 
By  the  Russian  massacres,  and  their  kindred  tyran- 
nies, your  Russian  brother  novelists  and  writers  are 
in  the  pitiable  condition  you  describe  in  your  second 
paper,  with  no  motor  cars,  no  cosy  dividends,  with 
scarcely  food  to  eat,  with  scarcely  decent  clothes  to 
cover  them.  While  the  Russian  workers  are  the 
dumb  driven  slaves  of  bloody  exploiters  who  shoot 
them  down  if  they  attempt  to  strike.  Yet  you  wholly 
condemn  Gallipoli,  and  you  complacently  condone 
the  Russian  massacres.  O  blasphemy  of  sacred, 
heaven-sent  common  sense!!  BOOM!  HOOT! 
HOWL ! 

I  keep  my  hand  upon  the  open  valve  of  the  fog- 
horn, and  let  the  "damned  thing,"  as  you  call  it, 
blare  out  its  ceaseless  warnings  through  the  thick 
fog  of  a  succeeding  column  or  two  of  your  fallacies, 
assumptions,  personal  aspersions,  inconsistencies  and 


Flapper  Flaps — Foghorn  Howls     159 

self-contradictions.  If  I  try  to  pick  out  the  most 
glaring  of  them,  almost  every  sentence  leaps  out  at 
me  and  demands  precedence  of  examination. 
However  I  will  choose  one  or  two  examples. 

Before  I  select  them,  I  will  take  you  back  to  the 
end  of  your  fifth  paper  on  Russia  where  you  sum- 
marize the  Bolshevik  situation.  You  tell  us  there 
that  we  must  intervene  on  a  grand  scale  with  the 
vast  resources  of  Western  civilization,  that  the 
American  government  must  undertake  the  gigantic 
task  of  becoming  the  supporter,  the  right  hand  and 
consultant  of  the  Russian  government — that  is  to 
say,  America  must  virtually  assume  the  dictatorship 
of  Russia.  You  threaten  us  that  unless  we  make 
these  colossal,  costly,  risky  experiments,  there  will  be 
a  final  collapse  of  civilization  in  Russia,  that  this 
collapse  will  spread  eastward  and  westward,  and 
that  possibly  *'all  modern  civilization  may  tumble 
in."  That  is  your  conclusion.  Your  formula  stated 
in  the  shortest  terms  is  this:  "Bolshevism  is  a  tre- 
mendous, world-threatening  thing.  We  must  deal 
with  it,  or  it  will  overwhelm  civilization." 

If  you  read  Mr.  Churchill's  paper,  you  will  find 
that  his  formula  stated  in  its  shortest  terms,  is 
exactly  the  same  as  your  own:  "Bolshevism  is  a 
tremendous,  world-threatening  thing.  We  must  deal 
with  it  or  it  will  overwhelm  civilization."  The 
difference  between  you  and  Mr.  Churchill  is  in  your 


i6o  My  Dear  Wells 

proposed  methods  of  dealing  with  Bolshevism. 
Mr.  Churchill  says :  "We  must  root  it  out  and  crush 
it."  You  say:  "We  must  nurse  it,  support  it,  and 
subsidize  it  with  enormous  capital  and  resources." 
Clearly  in  your  reply  to  Mr.  Churchill,  you  must 
address  yourself  to  this  one  point  upon  which  you 
are  at  variance  from  him,  for  on  the  other  two 
points,  you  are  in  agreement  with  him.  You  see 
that,  don't  you? 

Now  what  do  you  do?  From  the  start,  you 
involve  and  entangle  the  discussion  in  irrelevancies; 
you  constantly  abuse  Mr.  Churchill;  you  instil  and 
insinuate  your  own  theories;  you  carefully  avoid 
argument  upon  this  main  matter  upon  which  you 
differ  from  Mr.  Churchill,  and  at  great  length  and 
throughout  the  paper  you  try  to  prove  that  he  is 
wrong  upon  the  matter  wherein  you  agree  with  him, 
namely  that  Bolshevism  is  a  tremendous,  world- 
threatening  thing.  In  your  papers  on  Russia  you 
describe  its  horrors  and  terrors,  and  you  make  us 
shudder,  and  you  sum  up  by  warning  us  that  "all 
civilization  may  tumble  in."  In  your  reply  to  Mr. 
Churchill,  you  seek  to  prove  that  Bolshevism  is  a 
comparatively  trifling,  amiable,  negligible  thing.  Let 
me  give  you  a  few  quotations.  Don't  fidget,  my 
dear  Wells.  There's  a  dangerous  scowl  on  Spof- 
forth's  face,  and  a  dangerous  look  in  his  eye.  Don't 
irritate  him  beyond  his  endurance. 

'Tenshun,    my    dear    Wells  1      Read   your    own 


Flapper  Flaps — Foghorn  Howls     161 

words.  "Why  is  Mr.  Churchill  making  this  tre- 
mendous fuss  about  Bolshevism?"  You  ask  that? I 
You  take  away  my  breath. 

"I  have  tried  to  draw  the  Bolsheviks  as  tney  are, 
creatures  like  ourselves,  each  one  both  bad  and  good 
.  .  .  Mrs.  Sheridan's  diary  confirms  that  story  of 
entirely  human  beings  up  to  the  hilt."  We  are  not 
concerned  here  with  their  private  habits  and  rela- 
tions. We  all  know  that  when  the  enterprising 
burglar  is  not  a-burgling,  he  loves  to  lie  a-basking  in 
the  sun,  and  listen  to  the  brooks  a-gurgling.  That 
he  adores  the  beauties  of  nature  and  is  kind  to  his 
mother,  is  not  to  the  point.  We  are  dealing  with  him 
as  the  man  who  has  broken  into  our  house  and  stolen 
our  best  silver  teapot.  Mr.  Churchill,  you  tell  us, 
is  a  bright  and  vivid  painter  in  oils.  Why  not  judge 
him  from  that  point  of  view,  and  make  this  pleasing 
accomplishment  of  his  the  keynote  of  his  character? 
Why  represent  him  to  us  as  a  great  red  dragon  with 
an  abnormal  appetite  for  unborn  babes,  and  an 
atrocious  habit  of  smearing  his  vision  with  human 
blood,  and  in  this  blinking  state  posing  as  a  states- 
man? Since  you  would  have  us  judge  the  Bolshevist 
leaders  by  their  private  tastes  and  habits,  why  not 
extend  the  same  courteous  treatment  to  Mr. 
Churchill,  and  judge  him  by  some  amiable  trait  in 
his  private  character? 

Having  lightly  sketched  the  Bolshevist  leaders 
for  us  as  ordinary,  harmless  human  beings  like  our- 


i62  My  Dear  Wells 

selves,  you  say,  "But  Mr.  Churchill  will  ?tot  have 
that  truth."  It  is  not  a  truth,  my  dear  Wells.  It  Is 
a  glaring  transparent  fallacy,  the  fallacy  of  asking 
us  to  judge  men  in  their  private  relations,  when  we 
are  solely  concerned  with  their  public  capacities  and 
actions.  These  are  the  men  who  have  tortured  and 
shot  down  without  trial  countless  thousands  of  their 
helpless  innocent  countrymen.  That  is  the  Indict- 
ment on  which  we  are  trying  them. 

"He  exalts  the  Bolsheviks.  He  makes  much  of 
them.  He  magnifies  them  to  terrific  proportions, 
.  .  .  makes  them  the  leading  fact  in  the  whole 
world."  Well,  what  have  you  done?  You  warn 
us  that  if  we  don't  deal  with  them  "all  modern 
civilization  may  tumble  In."  Isn't  that  making  them 
"the  leading  fact  In  the  world"  ?  You  go  on  to 
speak  of  Bolshevism  as  "this  small  movement  .  .  . 
which  happens  to  he  in  control  of  Russia  today." 
When  your  purpose  is  to  discredit  Mr.  Churchill, 
you  represent  Bolshevism  as  a  temporary,  negligible 
phenomenon,  which  he  Is  trying  to  magnify  out  of 
all  proportion.  When  your  purpose  was  to  frighten 
us  Into  recognizing  and  supporting  Bolshevism,  you 
represented  it  as  a  formidable  firmly-established, 
world-invading  force. 

You  tell  us  that  Mr.  Churchill  is  too  Intelligent 
to  believe  that  "this  small  movement  .  .  .  can  really 
capture  and  dominate  the  world."  But  my  dear 
Wells,  you   have   demonstrated  to  us  that  it  has 


Flapper  Flaps — Foghorn  Howls     163 

already  so  far  captured  and  dominated  the  world 
that  it  threatens  the  wreck  of  modern  civilization, 
unless  we  extend  a  cordial  helping  hand  to  its  crazy 
bankrupt  government.    HOOT!  HOOT!  HOOTl 

Do  you  recognize,  my  dear  Wells,  that  in  the 
passages  I  have  quoted,  and  in  kindred  passages 
scattered  through  your  reply  where  you  claim  that 
Bolshevism  is  a  small  insignificant  movement, 
scarcely  worthy  our  troubling  about  in  a  world 
where  your  vast  vague  modern  ideas  are  alone  wor- 
thy of  consideration — do  you  recognize  that,  in  all 
these  passages,  you  are  seeking  to  establish  that  Mr. 
Churchill  is  perniciously  mistaken  in  a  matter  upon 
which  you  are  in  absolute  agreement  with  him — 
namely  that  Bolshevism  is  a  tremendous  world- 
threatening  force? 

I  do  wish  you  would  not  contradict  yourself  upon 
the  most  important  matters  of  fact.  I  cannot  but 
think  that  this  habit  of  yours,  like  your  other  habit 
of  making  the  wildest  assertions  without  the  least 
foundation,  is  a  very  bad  habit  indeed  in  a  social 
philosopher  of  your  eminence.  It  grieves  and  hurts 
me  more  than  I  can  say.  Can't  you  manage  to  break 
yourself  of  it?  Of  course  you  may  plead  that  you 
felt  yourself  unable  to  tackle  Mr.  Churchill  on  the 
matter  in  which  you  were  at  variance  from  him, 
namely  this — that  Bolshevism  being  this  world- 
threatening  force,  is  it  to  be  rooted  out  and  crushed, 
or  is  it  to  be  petted  and  cherished  and  supplied  with 


164  My  Dear  Wells 

capital?  You  may  plead  that  being  unable  to  meet 
Mr.  ChurchiU's  arguments  on  this  ground,  you  had 
to  prove  to  those  whom  you  are  "thinking  for,"  that 
he  was  wrong  about  something.  Even  then  I  do  not 
think  I  should  have  elected  to  prove  that  he  was 
wrong  in  a  matter  upon  which  you  entirely  agree 
with  him. 

Why  not  expose  him  as  a  bad  painter  in  oils? 
Your  disciples  probably  know  as  little  about  art  as 
they  know  about  logic.  I  haven't  seen  Mr.  Churchill's 
pictures,  but  I  think  it  possible  you  might  have  made 
out  a  damning  case  against  him  as  an  artist.  How- 
ever, your  object  was  to  prove  him  wrong  about 
something  or  about  anything,  in  order  to  discredit 
him  with  your  disciples.  And  your  disciples  not 
demanding  any  better  proof  than  your  bare  asser- 
tions, not  comparing  and  not  remembering,  any  more 
than  yourself,  what  you  say  from  week  to  week, 
accept  your  statements  and  retain  only  a  general 
impression  that  Mr.  Churchill  is  wrong  about  Bol- 
shevism, and  that  therefore  you  must  be  right.  If 
that  is  your  explanation  of  why  you  denounce  and 
attack  Mr.  Churchill  on  a  matter  in  which  you  are 
in  absolute  agreement  with  him,  I  accept  it  most 
cordially.  There  is  no  other  conceivable  explana- 
tion. 

And  now  having  glanced  at  one  or  two  of  the 
fallacies  and  contradictions  which  multiply  them- 
selves in  the  165  lines  of  your  paper  which  you  give 


Flapper  Flaps — Foghorn  Howls     165 

to  the  detraction  of  Mr.  Churchill,  we  may  allow 
ourselves  a  little  time  to  breathe  before  we  pass  to 
a  brief  examination  of  the  149  lines  given  over  to 
the  advancement  of  your  own  theories. 

I  ask  you  to  notice  that  we  have  not  yet  discovered 
a  single  word  of  argument  on  your  part  touching  the 
four  questions  which  cover  the  serious  matters  in 
dispute  between  you  and  Mr.  Churchill.  (See 
Letter  Nine,  page  103.)  The  funds  of  our  Fabian 
beanfeast  are  sadly  in  need  of  replenishment,  if  we 
are  to  have  that  rollicking  day  at  Hampton  Court 
and  Windsor  which  we  have  promised  ourselves.  I 
am  getting  anxious.  I  beg  you  to  attend  to  your 
duties  as  treasurer  of  our  beanfeast.  Whatever  may 
be  the  results  of  this  controversy,  at  least  let  us  get 
one  day  of  sheer  careless  healthy  breezy  enjoyment 
out  of  it.  You  have  disappointed  me  in  so  many 
things,  my  dear  Wells.  Don't  disappoint  me  in 
this.  You  accuse  me  of  trading  on  your  "careless 
hospitalities."  Let  me  amply  repay  you. 
Yours  bounteously, 

Henry  Arthur  Jones. 

New  York, 

February  11,  1921. 


LETTER  THIRTEEN. 

THE  TORTOISE  AND  THE  ELEPHANT. 

My  Dear  Wells, — 

I  think  we  may  congratulate  ourselves  upon  the 
progress  we  are  making  through  the  morass — if  I 
may  swell  into  metaphor  over  this  wonderful  reply 
of  yours  to  Mr.  Churchill.  You  will  take  it  as  a 
tribute  to  yourself  if  I  mix  my  metaphors,  and  say 
that  the  foghorn  is  working  admirably  under  the 
severe  strain  to  which  it  has  been  put.  You  will 
notice  that  I  am  obliged  to  keep  the  "damned  thing," 
as  you  call  it,  incessantly  tooting  and  booming  and 
hooting  and  howling. 

I  fear  that  as  we  examine  your  theories,  I  shall 
be  also  called  upon  to  render  you  frequent  services 
as  your  flapper — in  the  Laputan  sense.  I  will  there- 
fore keep  my  flapper's  rod  and  bladder  in  readiness 
at  my  elbow.  Just  to  arouse  your  attention,  I  will 
give  you  a  preliminary  tap.  Pop !  What  a  marks- 
man I  am! 

Now  about  these  theories  of  yours.  Spofforth 
seems  to  be  less  actively  malignant  and  has  dropped 

1 66 


The  Tortoise  and  the  Elephant      167 

back  in  his  chair.  I  suspect  that  this  is  a  ruse.  We 
will  credit  Spofforth  with  constant  vigilance. 

'Tenshun  to  these  theories  of  yours.  Subject  to 
your  correction,  I  claim  that  you  instil  and  exploit 
them  in  149  lines,  as  against  17  lines  that  you  set 
apart  for  argument  with  Mr.  Churchill. 

You  will  remember  that  at  some  period  of  the 
world's  history,  a  philosopher  whose  grasp  of  cosmic 
laws  and  principles  was  scarcely  less  comprehensive 
than  your  own,  evolved  the  theory  that  the  world 
rested  upon  the  back  of  an  elephant,  whose  feet  were 
firmly  planted  upon  the  back  of  a  tortoise.  By  this 
arrangement  our  planet  was  kept  in  a  steady  poise, 
and  mundane  affairs  proceeded  in  a  stable  working 
equilibrium.  In  those  days,  as  in  our  own,  the  great 
majority  of  the  people  found  it  too  great  an  exertion 
to  think  for  themselves,  and  so  allowed  other  people 
to  think  for  them.  The  theory  of  the  elephant  and 
the  tortoise  seemed  to  offer  a  simple  and  reasonable 
explanation  of  the  universe  as  they  saw  it.  They 
therefore  accepted  it  without  further  inquiry  as  to 
what  supported  the  tortoise.  The  tortoise  remained 
as  the  ultimate  foundation  of  all  things,  firmly  squat- 
ting upon  nothingness  in  the  void. 

I  wish  to  point  out  to  you,  my  dear  Wells,  the 
striking  resemblance  that  your  own  general  social 
and  political  theory  has  to  that  of  the  ancient 
philosopher.    In  its  main  conception,  it  has  the  same 


i68  My  Dear  Wells 

massive  simplicity.  It  renders  an  easy,  Intelligible 
explanation  of  the  concatenation  of  things.  It  is 
equally  satisfying  and  convincing  to  people  who 
cannot  think  for  themselves.  Indeed,  all  these 
worlds  of  "modern  Ideas,"  yours,  Lenin's,  and  the 
dozen  other  paradises  of  Socialistic  and  Interna- 
tional felicity,  are  built  upon  the  self-same  simple 
plan  of  the  tortoise,  the  elephant,  and  the  vast 
superincumbent  Paradise  on  the  top. 

I  have  but  one  question  to  ask  about  any  theory — 
will  it  work  in  the  actual  world  in  which  we  live?  I 
read  in  this  morning's  New  York  paper,  that  the 
Socialist  legislators  of  North  Dakota  have,  like 
Lenin,  brought  their  state  to  bankruptcy,  and  like 
Lenin,  are  obliged  to  apply  to  the  hated  Capitalist  to 
get  them  out  of  the  mess.  Strange  that  every  attempt 
to  establish  Socialism,  whether  in  small  communities 
of  a  few  families,  or  in  a  state  of  the  size  of  Dakota, 
or  in  one  of  vast  continental  proportions  like  Russia 
— strange  that  they  all  end  In  bankruptcy,  misery 
and  confusion,  while  the  commumty  gradually  re- 
turns to  security  and  prosperity  according  as  the 
modes  and  codes  of  ordinary  commercial  Intercourse 
are  again  brought  into  operation.  How  do  you 
account  for  this? 

Let  us  take  a  look  at  the  general  plan  on  which 
all  these  Socialist  Paradises  are  constructed  in  the 
minds  of  their  designers.  You  have  exposed  the 
crudely  false  Marxian  foundations  upon  which  Lenin 


The  Tortoise  and  the  Elephant      169 

tried  to  get  his  Paradise  to  work.  But,  my  dear 
Wells,  you  are  seeking  to  build  your  Collectivist 
Paradise  upon  the  same  simple  vicious  formula. 

First  of  all  you  posit  your  tortoise — a  body  of 
Collectivist  principles  and  doctrines.  You  do  not 
posit  it  on  the  bedrock  of  human  nature,  which  you 
may  be  sure  will  in  the  future  act  in  the  mass,  from 
the  same  general  motives  and  instincts  that  have 
guided  human  conduct  and  actions  in  all  the  past. 
You  posit  your  tortoise  In  an  aery  void  in  your 
"world  of  modern  ideas."  However,  the  tortoise 
Is  an  amiable  placid  beast,  who  lies  quiet  and  acqui- 
escent, while  you  plant  upon  his  thick  impenetrable 
shell  an  elephant  of  enormous  bulk  and  proportions. 
The  elephant,  as  you  readily  discern,  is  your  vast 
new  bureaucracy,  an  enormous  and  ever-increasing 
number  of  officials,  whose  business  It  will  be  to  look 
after  other  people's  business,  and  to  administer  your 
new  departments  and  new  institutions  according  to 
Collectivist  principles  and  laws.  Irrespective  of 
whether  the  mass  of  the  population  will  be  obliging 
enough  to  change  their  instincts  and  motives  and 
conform  to  your  ordinances.  This  Is  a  matter  that 
does  not  trouble  you  in  the  least,  for  you  complacent- 
ly proceed  to  put  your  new  and  regenerated  world 
on  the  top  of  the  elephant's  back. 

You  will  perceive,  my  dear  Wells,  that  the  success 
of  your  scheme  depends  upon  the  behaviour  of  the 
elephant.     You  assume  that  the  elephant  is  going  to 


170  My  Dear  Wells 

do  what  you  wish  him  to  do,  stand  patiently  there 
without  wriggling,  and  bear  your  new  world  upon 
his  broad  back  while  its  inhabitants  dance  round  it 
in  pure  unclouded  CoUectivist  content  and  felicity. 

It  all  depends  upon  the  elephant.  But  the  elephant 
cannot  be  depended  upon.  Docile  as  he  generally  is, 
he  has  his  seasons  of  "must"  and  friskiness  when 
even  his  keeper  dares  not  go  near  him.  And  to 
suppose  that  just  to  oblige  you  he  is  going  to  stand 
there  immovably  and  never  so  much  as  wriggle,  or 
jolt,  or  caper  about — My  dear  Wells,  O  my  dear 
Wells !  Do  study  the  elephant's  habits  and  nature, 
do  study  the  habits  and  nature  of  bureaucracy,  before 
you  put  your  new  world  upon  your  elephant's  back. 
Lenin's  Marxian  -elephant  has  kicked  his  Paradise 
to  pieces.  Why  should  you  think  that  your  CoUec- 
tivist elephant  will  be  any  more  tractable? 

Once  more  to  our  examination  of  these  149  lines 
in  your  reply  to  Mr.  Churchill,  where  you  insinuate 
and  exploit  these  theories  of  yours.  Just  to  keep  us 
en  rapport  with  each  other,  I  will  give  you  a  swinge- 
ing smack  with  my  flapper's  rod  and  bladder,  in- 
timating that  it  is  necessary  I  should  have  your  un- 
divided attention,  pop!  Rather  a  staggering  re- 
minder, eh?  But  my  dear  Wells,  you  are  so  steeped 
and  lost  in  your  theories  that  a  hard  tap  was  neces- 
sary. Trust  me,  I  won't  use  any  more  violence  with 
you  than  is  necessary  to  wake  you  up  to  actualities. 

You  reproach  and  abuse  Mr.  Churchill  through- 


The  Tortoise  and  the  Elephant*     171 

out  your  letter  for  being  concerned  with  Bolshevism, 
instead  of  being  concerned  with  the  advancement  of 
your  Collectivist  theories  and  schemes.  In  total 
oblivion  of  the  fact  that  your  have  described  Bol- 
shevism as  a  terror  that  threatens  to  overwhelm 
civilization,  you  now  treat  it  as  something  quite 
negligible  and  harmless.  All  that  we  have  to  do  is 
to  allow  it  to  subside,  and  to  be  absorbed  in  that 
general  beneficent  Collectivist  movement  of  all  man- 
kind which  you  are  directing  from  your  study. 

Now  the  first  thing  that  I  would  have  you  notice 
about  your  theories  and  schemes  is  that  they  are 
very  vast  and  very  vague.  You  condemn  our  present 
civilization  as  being  no  civilization  at  all.  "For 
ijuere  it  so,  it  would  surely  have  inherent  in  it  a  wider 
and  pier  future."  How  do  you  know  that  it  hasn't 
a  wider  and  finer  future?  Always  remember,  my 
dear  Wells,  that  this  deplorable  present  civilization 
does  provide  you  with  a  motor  car  and  cosy  divi- 
dends. You  will  be  lucky.if  you  get  these  advantages 
in  your  Collectivist  State.  In  your  opinion  our  present 
civilization  has  not  inherent  in  it  some  general 
blessed  condition  of  humanity  which  you  call  a 
"wider  and  finer  future."  You  would  replace  it  by 
Collectivism,  about  which  we  must  take  your  word, 
that  it  will  give  us  this  general  blessed  condition  of 
humanity  which  you  do  not  more  definitely  describe 
to  us  than  that  it  will  be  "a  wider  and  finer  future." 
I  daresay  you  could  give,  I  daresay  you  have  given, 


172  My  Dear  Wells 

as  circumstantial  a  picture  of  the  glories  of  this 
"wider  and  finer  future"  as  a  Salvation  Army  cap- 
tain could  give  us  of  the  glories  of  the  New  Jerusa- 
lem— and  as  convincing. 

You  proceed  to  say  that  if  our  present  civilization 
were  worth  preserving,  "it  would  involve  developing 
forces  of  education" — (A  terribly  nebulous  phrase) 
— Here  your  argument  is  that  because  in  your  opin- 
ion our  present  civilization  does  not  "involve"  this 
very  obscure  process,  it  must  be  destroyed  and  re- 
placed by  Collectivism.  My  dear  Wells,  I  suppose 
that  in  your  giant  mind  you  do  attach  some  meaning 
to  words.  In  merciful  consideration  for  our  be- 
wilderment, I  beg  you  to  tell  us  exactly  what  you 
mean  by  "involve  developing  forces  of  education." 
You  must  have  formed  some  more  or  less  definite 
conception  of  this  process  in  prospective  working, 
related,  as  it  inevitably  must  be,  to  all  other  social 
and  industrial  activities,  and  administered,  as  it 
must  be,  by  a  vast  army  of  officials. 

We  must  have  some  better  warrant  for  destroy- 
ing our  present  social  order  than  your  vague  accusa- 
tion that  it  doesn't  "involve  developing  forces  of 
education."  Already,  my  dear  Wells,  we  are  "de- 
veloping forces  of  education"  in  Whitehall  that 
threaten  to  cost  us  a  hundred  millions  a  year,  with 
the  result  that  our  working  class  girls  are  asked 
questions  about  Miss  Marie  Corelli,  and  that  the  85 
per  cent  of  our  population  who  have  to  get  their 


The  Tortoise  and  the  Elephant      173 

living  by  manual  labour  are  being  educated  away 
from  it,  and  increasingly  hate  and  avoid  it.  God 
forbid  that  we  should  develop  any  more  "forces  of 
education"  to  work  towards  these  ends. 

At  the  end  of  your  sentence  you  climb  to  yet 
dizzier  heights  of  vasty  vagueness.  You  level  the 
further  terrible  accusation  against  the  civilization 
that  provides  you  with  a  motor  car  and  cosy  divi- 
dends, that  it  does  not  "involve  developing  .  .  .  a 
power  of  resistance  against  error  and  passion." 
BOOM  I  BOOM!  BOOM!  HOWL!  HOWL! 
HOWL ! 

I  doat  to  ecstasy  upon  this  last  phrase.  It  is 
worthy  of  the  great  phrase-monger  himself.  You 
have  lately"  been  studying  the  various  successive 
civilizations.  Have  any  of  these  civilizations  "de- 
veloped a  power  of  resistance  to  error  and  passion"  ? 
If  so,  which  of  them?  Against  what  human  errors 
and  passions?  And  to  what  an  extent?  How  do  you 
gauge  this  power  of  resistance  in  any  particular 
civilization?  Are  you  quite  sure  that,  when  you 
have  overturned  our  present  civilization,  your  Col- 
lectivist  civilization  will  develop  this  very  abstract, 
very  intangible  "power  of  resistance  to  error  and 
passion"  in  any  greater  degree  than  our  present 
civilization,  or  than  the  civilizations  that  have 
perished? 

All  these  questions  you  should  have  asked  yourself 
and  answered,  before  reproaching  and  abusing  Mr. 


174  ^y  I^car  Wells 

Churchill  because  he  upholds  a  form  of  civilization 
which,  whatever  its  defects,  has  at  least  the  very 
definite,  very  concrete,  very  substantial,  and  precisely 
appraisable  merit  of  providing  you,  as  I  think  I 
have  said  before,  with  a  motor  car  and  cosy  divi- 
dends. 

Remember,  O  remember,  my  dear  Wells,  that 
your  Collectlvist  State  will  have  to  be  administered, 
not  in  your  study,  but  In  the  world  at  large  by  actual 
men  and  women,  who  will  be  cussedly  liable  to  error 
and  passion — administered  by  them  for  their  fellow 
men  and  women  who  will  also  be  cussedly  liable  to 
error  and  passion.  Perhaps  you  haven't  estimated 
this  liability  to  error  and  passion  In  men  and  women. 
At  any  rate  you  seem  to  have  planned  your  CoUec- 
tivlst  State  on  the  assumption  that  its  happy  populace 
will  not  only  be  free  from  error  and  passion,  but 
also  from  the  base  and  vicious  habit  of  looking 
after  their  own  individual  interests. 

BOOM!  BOOM!  BOOM! 

I  take  a  moment's  pause  to  bid  you  observe  that 
I  am  not  here  concerned  to  defend  our  present  civil- 
ization. My  primary  object  for  the  time  being,  is 
to  examine  the  quality  and  consistency  of  your 
thinking,  and  to  measure  your  capacity  to  "think 
for"  other  people  on  the  gravest  questions — in  short 
I  repeat  I  am  constructing  a  Wellsometer. 

In  the  same  strain,  with  the  same  sublime  vasty 
vagueness,  you  go  on  to  deny  that  our  present  social 


The  Tortoise  and  the  Elephant      175 

order  is  a  civilization  at  all,  or  it  would  be  capable 
of  "sane  adjustments  against  war  and  a  proper 
economy  of  its  resources  and  energy."  Toot! 
Toot!  Toot!  Tout  a  fait  all  Toot!  And  Boom! 
Boom !  Boom !  Here  you  are  in  the  same  misty 
region  of  abstractions  and  imponderable  generali- 
ties, vending  pills  to  cure  earthquakes.  You  talk, 
my  dear  Wells,  you  talk,  you  talk!  As  the  Amer- 
icans say,  "Come  down  to  brass  tacks." 

I  have  analyzed  but  one  passage  out  of  the  many 
in  which  you  push  your  CoUectivist  theories,  ideals, 
and  plans.  At  your  request,  and  for  your  further 
enlightenment  I  am  ready  to  analyze  all  the  other 
similar  passages.  But  I  think  I  have  amply  shown 
that  you  are  wandering  among  vast  and  vague  ab- 
stractions which  you  would  find  it  impossible  to  bring 
into  any  practical  connection  with  actualities,  and 
with  the  masses  of  mankind  as  we  know  them. 

Let  me  note  that  all  this  time  we  have  not  dis- 
covered one  line  of  argument  upon  the  matters  that 
you  are  pretending  to  discuss  with  Mr.  Churchill. 

The  second  thing  that  I  wish  you  to  notice  about 
your  theories  and  schemes,  is  that,  granted  they  are 
feasible,  they  will  be  terribly  expensive — so  ex- 
pensive that  they  will  infallibly  ruin  any  community 
that  attempts  to  put  them  into  practice.  As  I  do 
not  believe  that  your  schemes  are  workable,  I  needn't 
trouble  myself  about  the  expense  of  working  them. 
But  if,  after  the  publication  of  these  letters,  you 


176  My  Dear  Wells 

still  intend  to  advocate  the  establishment  of  a  Col- 
lectivist  State,  I  think  you  should  draw  out  some 
sort  of  a  balance  sheet  of  its  probable  assets  on  the 
one  side,  and  its  actual  working  expenses  and  lia- 
bilities on  the  other  side. 

I  beseech  you  to  go  very  carefully  into  this  matter 
of  Collectivist  finance,  my  dear  Wells.  I  foresee 
very  great  difficulties  ahead  of  you.  All  the  more, 
as  I  suppose  that  whatever  commercial  transactions 
and  intercourse  are  permitted  in  your  Collectivist 
State,  will  be  regulated  by  the  new  kind  of  honesty 
which  you  and  Lenin  have  invented,  and  not  by  the 
old  kind  of  honesty  as  set  forth  in  the  eighth  com- 
mandment. I  tell  you  frankly,  my  dear  Wells,  I 
have  very  grave  doubts  about  this  new  kind  of 
honesty.  However,  it  seems  to  be  gaining  general 
acceptance  as  the  honesty  of  the  future.  For  myself, 
I  much  prefer  the  old  kind. 

Now  it  seems  to  me  that  the  practice  of  this  new 
kind  of  honesty  in  your  Collectivist  State,  will  be  a 
terrible  burden  and  embarrassment  to  its  finances. 
I  do  not  envy  your  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer.  If 
I  were  you,  I  would  not  say  one  further  word  in 
favour  of  the  establishment  of  Collectivism,  till  I 
had  carefully  worked  out  a  scheme  of  finance  suitable 
to  the  requirements  of  your  future  State,  Take  care 
you  manage  to  leave  a  balance  on  the  right  side. 
Consider  how  annoying  it  will  be  to  you  if,  just  at 
the  moment  you  have  got  things  nicely  started,  you 


The  Tortoise  and  the  Elephant      177 

find  yourself  obliged,  like  Lenin,  and  like  the  Social- 
ists of  North  Dakota,  to  apply  to  some  body  of 
hated  Capitalists  to  come  with  a  little  ready  cash  and 
help  you  out  of  the  mess.  No,  no,  my  dear  Wells, 
you  mustn't  risk  a  fiasco  of  that  kind.  It  must  be 
the  crowning  glory  of  your  career  to  establish  a  Col- 
lectivist  State  on  a  sound  financial  basis. 

I  know  there  are  enormous  difficulties.  It  isn't 
merely  that  men  are  liable  to  "error  and  passion" 
and  will  follow  their  own  selfish  interests.  There 
are  the  women.  For  instance,  when  Comrade  Bela 
Kun  was  governing  in  Buda-Pesth,  Mrs.  Bela  Kun 
went  to  Vienna  and  bought  all  the  latest  Parisian 
evening  dresses,  paying  enormous  sums — eighty 
pounds  for  one  hat.  I  hear  a  similar  story  about 
the  wife  of  a  leading  German  Socialist.  I  dare  say 
that  you  know  wives  of  English  Socialists  and  Collec- 
tivists  who  are  so  actively  opposed  to  their  husbands' 
pet  theories  and  principles  that  they  take  every  op- 
portunity of  dressing  much  better  than  their  neigh- 
bours. Even  if  we  get  all  the  men  to  fall  in  with 
our  Collectivist  plans,  how  shall  we  abolish  all  this 
rivalry  of  extravagance  in  the  women?  How  shall 
we  get  all  the  pretty  women  to  renounce  the  addi- 
tional charms  which  the  latest  most  expensive 
fashions  may  give  them,  and  how  shall  we  get  all 
the  plain  women  to  rest  content,  without  trying  to 
cover  and  obliterate  their  plainness  under  factitious 
costly  adornment? 


178  My  Dear  Wells 

This  is  a  most  serious  question,  my  dear  Wells. 
I  hope  you  will  be  able  to  find  a  solution.  We  can't 
have  our  youngling  Collectivist  Commonwealth  per- 
vaded by  Mrs.  Bela  Kuns,  can  we?  How  are  you 
going  to  prevent  it? 

In  this  marvellous  reply  of  yours  to  Mr.  Churchill, 
you  advocate  radical  universal  changes  which,  if 
carried  out,  will  dislocate  the  world's  present  fiscal 
system,  and  from  the  outset  will  demand  a  colossal 
expenditure  by  your  Collectivist  officials.  Where's 
the  money  to  come  from,  my  dear  Wells?  Not  only 
is  your  giant  mind  clouded  with  a  vasty  vagueness 
as  to  how  your  theories  are  to  be  worked  by  actual 
men  and  women,  but  it  is  steeped  in  a  yet  denser  and 
vastier  vagueness  as  to  how  they  are  to  be  paid  for. 

Come  now,  sit  down  with  a  sufficient  supply  of 
pens,  ink.  and  paper  and  make  out  the  first  year's 
budget  of  your  Collectivist  Commonwealth.  Put 
all  your  expenses  on  one  side.  Don't  forget  any  of 
the  items.  On  the  other  side,  set  down  all  your 
assets.  By  the  way,  what  are  your  assets?  From 
what  sources,  out  of  whose  pockets  do  they  come? 
Well,  whatever  your  assets  may  be,  set  them  down  in 
a  nice  clear  clerkly  hand,  and  then  strike  the  balance. 
It  would  be  a  thousand  pities  if  our  hopeful  Col- 
lectivist State  collapsed  at  the  start,  and  all  for  want 
of  a  little  ready  cash. 

What?  You  don't  propose  to  start  business  on 
a  cash  basis?    You  propose  to  open  this  universal 


The  Tortoise  and  the  Elephant      179 

Collectlvlst  shop  and  supply  everybody  with  every- 
thing they  need,  on  the  sole  security  that  mankind 
generally  are  going  to  forsake  their  own  palpable 
individual  interests,  and  do  all  that  your  vasty  vague- 
ness has  mapped  out  for  them  to  do?  My  dear 
Wells,  you'll  shut  up  your  Collectivist  shop  within 
a  week.  A  week?  I'll  bet  you  a  complete  set  of 
all  your  writings  on  Social  Philosophy  to  a  three- 
penny bit,  that  you'll  never  get  open  at  all. 

You  have  planted  your  tortoise  in  the  void,  and 
your  elephant  will  kick  your  Collectivist  Paradise  to 
bits,  the  moment  you  put  it  upon  his  back.  It  is  all 
in  the  void,  my  dear  Wells.  It  is  all  on  paper.  It 
is  something  that  has  got  into  your  head,  and  all  the 
time  Nature  has  got  something  quite  different  in  her 
head.  Don't  you  catch  her  smile  of  grave  contempt, 
as  she  watches  you  hatching  these  vasty  vague 
theories  of  yours,  and  saddling  your  new  world  on 
to  your  elephant's  back?  Let  us  have  some  further 
talk  about  these  theories  in  my  next  letter.  With 
incessant  care  for  you, 

Henry  Arthur  Jones. 

P.  S. — Have  you  read  that  little  pamphlet  I  sent 
you,  "The  Folly  of  Having  Opinions"? 
New  York, 
February  18,  1921. 


LETTER  FOURTEEN. 

FALLACIES  GALORE. 

My  Dear  Wells, — 

The  more  I  study  this  reply  of  yours  to  Mr. 
Churchill,  the  more  I  am  fascinated  and  absorbed 
by  it.  It  is  so  nebulous  in  phrase,  so  opulent  in 
fallacy,  so  triumphant  in  assumption,  so  brazen  in 
self-contradiction,  so  cocksure  in  wild  unproved  as- 
sertion. Bear  with  me  while  I  analyze  a  few  more 
of  its  sentences,  if  not  for  your  correction,  at  least 
for  my  own  pastime. 

From  a  score  of  kindred  passages  I  pick  the  fol- 
lowing: 

"But  does  Mr.  Churchill  really  believe  that  the 
men  who  created  all  this  vision  of  hope"  (curious 
occupation,  "creating  visions  of  hope."  I  cannot 
quite  follow  the  process),  "the  patient  men  of 
science,  the  inventors  and  writers  and  teachers,  did 
it  all  for  private  gain,  or  for  the  aggrandisement 
of  a  family?'* 

Some  of  them  did;  some  of  them  did  not.  Some 
of  them  succeeded  in  getting  much  private  gain,  and 
in  founding  families;  some  of  them  did  not.  Prob- 
ably most  of  them  worked,  as  most  of  us  work,  from 

1 80 


Fallacies  Galore  181 

the  honourable  motives  of  getting  private  gain,  and 
also  of  getting  fame  and  influence.  Shakespeare 
made  a  comfortable  fortune  out  of  popular  play- 
writing.  As  Goethe  says,  "Shakespeare  and  Moliere 
wanted  above  all  things  to  make  money  out  of  their 
theatres."  Tennyson  made  money  and  founded  a 
peerage.  Even  you,  I  suppose,  were  not  averse 
from  taking  a  cheque  for  your  papers  on  "Russia 
in  the  Shadows."  I  hope  you  got  as  much  for  them 
as  they  were  worth. 

Many  other  instances  will  occur  to  you  of  men  of 
letters,  artists,  scientists,  statesmen,  soldiers,  in- 
ventors, and  other  men  of  genius  who  have  been 
tolerably  well  rewarded  both  in  cash  and  fame,  some 
of  them  abundantly.  Whatever  may  be  a  fair  mar- 
ket price  for  "creating  visions  of  hope"  for  the 
British  public,  you  wouldn't  say  that  you  have  been 
underpaid,  either  in  cash  or  fame,  for  such  "visions 
of  hope"  as  you  have  "created."  I  am  inclined  to 
think,  my  dear  Wells,  that  you  rather  overdo  it. 
You  "create"  rather  too  many  of  these  "visions  of 
hope."  However,  there  is  a  great  demand  for  them, 
and  you  know  your  public  and  your  market. 

Certainly,  the  majority  of  the  supreme  poets, 
artists,  musicians,  inventors,  philosophers,  and 
scientists,  have  not  worked  mainly  with  the  object 
of  providing  themselves  with  motor  cars  and  cosy 
dividends.  They  have  generally  worked  for  a  re- 
ward of  another  sort,  the  reward  that  does  not 


l82  My  Dear  Wells 

"grow  on  mortal  soil, 
But  lives  and  spreads  aloft  by  those  pure  eyes 
And  perfect  witness  of  all-judging  Jove." 

For  the  most  part,  the  supreme  creative  benefac- 
tors of  mankind  have  obtained  this  reward,  the  re- 
ward that  they  coveted  and  worked  for;  not  always 
in  exact  proportion  to  their  merits,  but  on  the  whole 
with  some  rough  approach  to  fairness.  In  our  im- 
perfect world,  we  must  own  that  genius,  merit,  hon- 
esty, and  hard  work  are  not  always  rewarded  exactly 
in  their  degree.  You'll  take  care,  won't  you,  that  in 
your  Collectivist  State,  everybody  gets  his  exact 
reward  out  of  your  inexhaustible  treasury? 

My  dear  Wells,  your  argument  in  this  sentence 
is  this:  "Because  many  men  of  genius  and  great 
creative  benefactors  of  humanity  have  not  received 
those  rewards  in  money  and  those  titles  which  they 
did  not  covet  or  seek,  and  because  a  few  of  them 
have  perished  miserably  before  their  other  great 
reward  of  imperishable  fame  was  bestowed  upon 
them  by  universal  acclaim,  therefore  let  us  destroy 
our  present  civilization,  burn  down  our  employers' 
shops,  and  institute  a  new  civilization  where  every- 
body shall  be  rewarded  exactly  according  to  his 
services  and  merits." 

Presumably  you  will  take  care  that  these  great 
creative  benefactors  of  humanity  shall  receive  the 
lion's  share  of  whatever  may  be  going  about  in  the 
way  of  hard  cash  and  titles  in  your  Collectivist  State. 


Fallacies  Galore  183 

If  you  do  not  reward  them  with  hard  cash  and  titles 
or  honours,  how  do  you  propose  to  reward  them? 
What  other  rewards  can  you  give  them?  You  seem 
to  imply  that  they  have  been  beggarly  treated  in  our 
present  social  order  and  therefore  you  propose  to 
destroy  it.  Clearly  if  you  do  not  give  them  an  extra 
allowance  of  hard  cash,  and  honours,  then  these  great 
creative  benefactors — the  very  class  whom  it  is  gen- 
erally agreed  should  be  most  highly  paid  and  most 
highly  honored — will  be  very  much  worse  off  in  your 
Collectivist  State  than  in  our  present  bad  old  civil- 
ization. Whoever  else  is  going  to  benefit  by  the 
change,  clearly  it  will  not  be  the  great  sovereign 
benefactors  and  teachers  of  mankind. 

But  if  you  do  give  these  creative  benefactors  a 
substantially  increased  reward  in  hard  cash  and 
honours  in  your  Collectivist  State,  is  that  not  sure  to 
provoke  envy,  discontent  and  insurrection  amongst 
other  classes  of  workers,  such  as  railway  men  and 
boilermakers?  I  think  before  you  start  your  Col- 
lectivist State,  you  should  draw  out  a  proportionate 
scale  of  pay  for  every  class  of  worker — so  much  a 
day  for  coal  miners,  so  much  a  day  for  the  star 
heroines  of  the  film,  so  much  a  day  for  Ministers 
of  State,  so  much  a  day  for  those  who  "create  visions 
of  hope"  for  the  public.  Let  us  have  it  all  clear — 
at  any  rate  on  paper — before  we  begin  burning  down 
our  employers'  shops  as  a  practical  way  of  giving  our 
Collectivist  State  a  good  start  and  a  fair  chance. 


184  My  Dear  Wells 

Draw  out  your  pay  sheet  in  advance,  my  dear  Wells. 
Let  me  have  a  look  at  it  before  you  proceed  to  en- 
force its  acceptance  upon  the  various  classes  of 
workers.  I  may  be  able  to  give  you  a  useful  hint 
or  two. 

But  you  will  say  that  in  the  succeeding  sentence, 
you  point  out  the  one  great  source  of  evil  and  cor- 
ruption in  our  present  civilization.  You  demand  of 
Mr.  Churchill  whether  he  has  the  "assurance  to  tell 
us  that  the  rich  men  of  to-day  and  the  powerful  men 
of  to-day  are  anything  hut  the  interceptors  of  the 
wealth  and  influence  that  quite  other  men  have  cre- 
ated for  mankind?" 

Do  you  mean  all,  or  approximately  all,  the  rich 
men,  approximately  all  the  powerful  men?  If  you 
do,  then  no  more  monstrously  and  transparently 
false  and  absurd  suggestion  was  ever  made. 
TOOT!  TOOT!  TOOT!  HOOT!  HOOT! 
HOOT !  Open  your  eyes,  my  dear  Wells.  Let  me 
give  you  a  resounding  thwack  with  my  flapper's  rod 
and  bladder.  POP!  Awake!  Awake  to  facts! 
Make  a  list  of  the  richest,  and  most  powerful 
men  in  Western  European  and  American  civ- 
ilization. Quite  a  large  number  of  them  are 
men  who  have  made  themselves  rich  and  pow- 
erful, not  by  intercepting  the  wealth  and  in- 
fluence that  other  men  have  created  for  mankind, 
but  by  their  own  conspicuous  ability,  by  severe 
self-denial,  by  constant  strain  of  thought  and  hard 


Fallacies  Galore  185 

work.  By  these  means  they  have  created  vast 
quantities  of  wealth  for  others,  and  have  eased 
the  conditions  of  living  for  large  populations  of 
workers,  and  have  otherwise  conferred  lasting  bene- 
fits on  their  fellows.  I  do  not  say  that  some  of 
these  rich  and  powerful  men  may  not  have  received 
larger  rewards  than  were  justly  their  due.  I  do  not 
say  that  some  of  them  may  not  have  gained  some  of 
their  wealth  by  dishonest  means.  There  is  no  pos- 
sible way  of  adjusting  any  scale  of  measurement.  The 
thing  for  you  to  notice — POP ! — is  that  in  your  Col- 
lectivist  State  you  are  not  likely  to  have  many  of 
these  benefactors,  for  in  denying  them  the  rewards 
of  money,  power,  honour  and  influence,  you  take 
away  from  them  all  incentive  to  train  their  natural 
ability,  to  exercise  self-denial,  to  scorn  base  trivial 
delights,  and  to  spend  themselves  in  constant 
thought  and  labour.  Notice  the  result  in  Russia 
of  suppressing  and  persecuting  out  of  existence  this 
enterprising  type. 

It  is  true  that  among  these  deservedly  rich  and 
powerful  men  you  will  not  find  many  scientists,  writ- 
ers, thinkers  and  artists.  These  classes  do  not  as  a 
rule,  work  chiefly  for  the  rewards  of  money  and 
power.  They  covet  that  other  greater  and  more 
durable  reward.  But  even  in  the  matter  of  hard 
cash,  many  of  them  fare  very  comfortably.  They 
have  their  motor  cars  and  cosy  dividends. 

Again,  many  of  the  most  powerful  men  in  the 


i86  My  Dear  Wells 

world  are  by  no  means  rich.  They  covet  the  pos- 
session of  power  and  the  disposition  and  government 
of  their  fellows  more  than  they  covet  riches.  But 
again  many  of  these  fare  very  comfortably.  They 
have  their  motor  cars  and  cosy  dividends. 

Let  us  return  to  the  examination  of  your  challenge 
to  Mr.  Churchill.  "Has  he  the  assurance  to  tell  us 
that  the  rich  men  of  today  and  the  powerful  men  of 
today,  are  anything  hut  the  interceptors  of  the 
wealth  and  influence  that  quite  other  men  have  cre- 
ated for  mankind.'*  If  Mr.  Churchill  hasn't  the 
assurance  to  tell  you  that,  I  have,  my  dear  Wells. 
Your  fallacy  is  that  you  implicitly  assert  that  all  rich 
men  and  all  powerful  men  today  are  dishonest  "in- 
terceptors" of  money  and  influence  that  do  not  be- 
long to  them.  You  do  not  trouble  to  ask  if  there 
are  any  exceptions,  what  probable  proportion  there 
is  of  rich  and  powerful  men  who  are  not  "dishonest 
interceptors,"  how  the  rich  and  powerful  men  who 
are  not  dishonest  "interceptors"  are  to  be  distin- 
guished from  the  rich  and  powerful  men  who  are 
dishonest  "interceptors,"  or  whether  there  is  any 
means  of  distinguishing  them.  You  merely  make  a 
false  general  careless  sweeping  assertion  that  all 
rich  and  all  powerful  men  are  grabbing  the  wealth 
and  influence  that  quite  other  men,  whose  names  you 
do  not  mention,  have  "created  for  mankind." 

By  the  way,  you  do  not  tell  us  the  precise  process 
by  which  these  other  men  have  "created  influence" 


Fallacies  Galore  187 

for  mankind  generally  to  use  and  profit  by.  I  sup- 
pose by  the  same  process  that  they  "created  visions 
of  hope."  Nor  do  you  tell  us  what  kind  of  "influ- 
ence" it  is  that  these  other  men  have  "created." 
Apparently  it  is  a  portable  influence,  for  dishonest 
rich  and  powerful  men  have  grabbed  it.  Apparently 
also  it  was  "created"  in  large  quantities,  for  small 
quantities  of  influence  would  not  be  worth  stealing 
by  rich  and  powerful  men.  Whether  this  influence 
was  created  in  lumps  or  in  a  fluid  state,  where  it  was 
stored  when  the  rich  and  powerful  men  grabbed  it, 
where  they  have  stored  it  now,  whether  in  bottles  or 
in  tins  or  in  cardboard  boxes,  and  what  conceivable 
use  any  man,  however  rich  and  powerful  and  dis- 
honest, can  make  of  this  stolen  influence  when  he  has 
got  it — all  these  interesting  particulars  you  withhold 
from  us,  my  dear  Wells.  You  merely  bring  a  loose 
general  accusation  against  all  rich  and  all  powerful 
men  of  grabbing  vast  quantities  of  influence  which 
unspecified  persons  have  "created  for  mankind." 

A  damning  accusation  truly,  but — nebulous,  eh? 
In  fact  a  masterpiece  of  nebulosity  and  vasty  vague- 
ness? What  does  that  matter?  Those  whom  you 
are  "thinking  for"  will  not  analyze  it,  cannot 
analyze  it.  The  majority  of  them  wish  to  believe 
that  they  have  been  defrauded  by  rich  powerful  dis- 
honest men,  who  it  seems  have  not  only  seized  their 
wealth,  but  also  have  seized  all  these  tons  or  hogs- 
heads of  "influence,"  which  rightly  belongs  to  man- 


i88  My  Dear  Wells 

kind  generally.  And  so  you  establish  yourself  in 
the  minds  of  your  disciples  as  a  philanthropist  who 
is  determined  to  prevent  their  being  defrauded.  And 
you  establish  Mr.  Churchill  in  their  minds  as  a 
greedy  adventurer  who  is  determined  to  defraud 
them.  You  build  a  series  of  loose  general  conclu- 
sions upon  this  foundation  fallacy.  You  go  on  for 
half  a  column  at  the  very  summit  of  vasty  vagueness 
in  a  mist  of  abstractions,  railing  at  Mr.  Churchill, 
and  opening  up  vistas  of  the  new  modern  world  civili- 
zation which  is  to  work  so  comfortably  and  so  benef- 
icently for  all  mankind  when  Collectivism  has  swept 
all  acquisitive  adventurers  from  the  face  of  the 
earth. 

Upon  the  monstrous  transparent  fallacy  that  all 
rich  and  all  powerful  men  are  dishonestly  grabbing 
what  does  not  belong  to  them,  you  pile  the  monstrous 
assumption  that  all  private  enterprise  snatches  away 
from  the  workers  what  they  have  created.  BOOM  1 
BOOM  1  BOOM  1  Because  a  few  scientists,  artists, 
poets,  thinkers,  and  other  inspired  benefactors  of 
humanity,  have  worked  without  the  object  of  gain- 
ing a  monetary  reward,  you  assume  that  everybody 
ought  to  work,  and  can  be  persuaded  to  work,  in  the 
same  spirit;  that  in  your  Collectivist  State  everybody 
will  as  a  matter  of  fact  work  in  the  same  spirit,  with 
the  same  lofty  disregard  of  their  personal  interests, 
and  from  the  sole  motive  of  securing  the  diffused  and 
general  good  of  the  Collectivist  Community. 


Fallacies  Galore  189 

BOOM!     BOOM     BOOM! 

And  all  the  time  ycu  carefully  avoid  a  single  word 
of  argument  with  Mr.  Churchill  upon  the  matters 
which  are  actually  in  dispute  between  you  and  him. 
O  my  most  nugatory  Wells !  My  most  divaricatory, 
most  divagatory  Wells,  whither  will  you  wander 
next? 

Let  us  look  very  searchingly  into  this  reprehen- 
sible habit  which,  without  distinction,  you  ascribe 
to  all  rich  and  all  powerful  men — that  of  grabbing 
wealth  and  influence  that  do  not  belong  to  them. 
You  call  it  "intercepting." 

We  are  about  to  grapple  with  a  most  difficult  and 
infinitely  complex  question.  I  shall  need  your 
strictest,  minutest  attention.  As  your  faithful  flap- 
per— in  the  Laputan  sense — I  will  give  you  three 
rousing  taps. 

POP !    POP  I    POP ! 

Awake  !  Awake  to  facts !  It  is  this  pachyderma- 
tous invulnerability  of  yours  to  facts,  my  dear  Wells, 
— this,  this  it  is  that  keeps  me  awake  at  nights, 
and  saddens  the  landscape  for  me  when  I  take  my 
evening  walks. 

Now  let  us  try  to  do  some  clear  thinking  about 
"intercepting"  and  "interceptors."  They  are  a  very 
ancient  and  hardy  race,  these  whom  you  call  "inter- 
ceptors." They  have  existed  in  all  past  civilizations. 
A  very  pronounced,  aggressive,  unscrupulous  type 
of  "Interceptor"  existed  in  large  numbers  amongst 


igo  My  Dear  Wells 

God's  own  chosen  people.  The  old  Hebrew 
prophets  called  them  "Oppressors"  and  fulminated 
against  them  in  majestic  language,  but  so  far  as  we 
can  judge,  without  any  practical  result,  either  in 
the  reduction  of  their  numbers  or  the  moderation  of 
their  propensities.  Our  modern  terms  are  "Middle- 
men," "Exploiters,"  "Capitalists,"  "Grabbers," 
"Profiteers."  An  assault  that  I  made  upon  Middle- 
men more  than  thirty  years  ago,  while  it  has  been 
very  popular  upon  the  stage,  has  been  as  barren  in 
practical  results  as  the  loftier  denunciations  of  the 
Hebrew  prophets. 

"Oppressor"  is  a  good  term  to  use  for  those  men 
whom  we  can  clearly  prove  to  be  abusing  their  posi- 
tion of  master,  employer,  or  overseer,  to  "intercept" 
money  or  advantages  which  are  due  to  their  servants. 
The  difficulty  is  to  prove  what  is  fair  and  what  is 
unfair.  Servants  and  masters  make  such  entirely 
different  estimates. 

"Exploit"  and  "Exploiters"  are  bad  and  mislead- 
ing terms  to  connote  the  relations  of  masters  to 
servants  and  employees.  The  words  have  been  di- 
verted from  their  legitimate  meaning.  They  are 
viciously  used  to  stir  up  in  all  servants  a  sense  of 
grievance,  a  feeling  that  to  be  employed  at  all  is 
necessarily  to  be  taken  advantage  of  by  an  un- 
scrupulous employer.  There  is  cruel  and  unjust 
exploiting,  and  there  are  cruel  and  unjust  exploiters. 
There  is  fair  and  beneficent  exploiting,  and  there 


Fallacies  Galore  191 

are  fair  and  beneficent  exploiters.  It  would  help  us 
to  think  more  clearly  on  these  matters  if  for  a  while 
we  ceased  to  talk  about  exploiters  and  being  ex- 
ploited. Why  will  we  use  words  to  befog  ourselves  ? 
The  great  majority  of  men  in  any  State  must  neces- 
sarily be  "exploited,"  as  the  great  majority  of  the 
cells  in  any  body  must  necessarily  be  "exploited"  by 
the  brain,  and  must  work  in  obedience  to  its  direc- 
tions, in  order  that  the  organism  may  fulfil  its  func- 
tions. The  brain  must  "exploit"  the  cells.  The 
cells  cannot  "exploit"  the  brain.  Sometimes  the 
stomach  tries  to  "exploit"  the  brain  and  the  other 
cells.  This  is  bad  physiological  economy.  We  see 
instances  of  it  in  almost  every  bus,  tube,  and  sub- 
way. 

The  workers  suffer  most  from  "exploiting"  when 
they  throw  off  their  legitimate  "exploiters,"  that  is, 
their  employers,  and  fall  into  the  hands  of  theorists 
like  yourself  and  Lenin.  Bad  and  unscrupulous  as 
many  "exploiters"  of  English  labour  have  been, 
not  one  of  them  has  "exploited"  his  workmen  with 
a  tithe  of  the  ruthless  cruelty  and  severity  of  Lenin 
— twelve  or  fourteen  hours  a  day  forced  labour,  no 
right  to  strike,  and  torture  or  death  for  disobedience. 

The  word  "interceptors"  which  you  have  used  is 
perhaps  the  best  word  that  we  can  use  in  trying  to 
unravel  this  very  tangled  knot  of  economics.  You 
used  it,  my  dear  Wells,  in  your  usual  loose  confused 
way,  without  seeking  to  find  its  implications,  without 


192  My  Dear  Wells 

putting  It  into  any  relation  with  the  universal  perma- 
nent instincts,  motives  and  tendencies  of  human 
nature. 

You  used  the  word  ''interceptors"  to  signify  those 
who  unfairly  grab  "wealth  and  influence"  which  be- 
long to  mankind;  and  you  implicitly  affirmed  that 
all  rich  and  all  powerful  men  without  exception, 
without  qualification,  are  guilty  of  this  evil  practice. 
If  you  say  that  you  did  not  mean  to  imply  that  all 
rich  and  all  powerful  men,  without  exception,  with- 
out qualification,  pursue  this  evil  habit  to  the  detri- 
ment and  impoverishment  of  their  fellows,  then  your 
passages  that  follow  make  even  worse  nonsense  than 
if  you  did  imply  that  this  evil  habit  is  possessed  by 
all  rich  and  all  powerful  men  without  exception, 
without  qualification.  You  challenge  Mr.  Churchill 
to  deny  that  "the  rich  men  of  today  and  the  powerful 
men  of  today  are  anything  hut  the  interceptors  of 
the  wealth  and  influence  that  other  men  have  created 
for  mankind."  It  Is  an  unqualified  statement,  and  as 
is  your  custom,  you  assume  it  to  be  proved,  and  you 
pile  up  much  vasty  vagueness  on  the  top  of  it. 

I  am  not  denying  that  many  rich  men  and  many 
powerful  men  do  abuse  their  position,  do  most  un- 
fairly and  most  grievously  "intercept"  wealth  and 
other  good  things,  which,  if  this  were  a  perfect 
world,  would  belong,  if  not  to  mankind  at  large,  at 
least  to  more  deserving  possessors.  Let  us  make 
a  searching  inquiry  into  this  very  prevalent  habit  of 


Fallacies  Galore  193 

intercepting  wealth.  Let  us  ask  who  are  the  inter- 
ceptors; how  many  or  how  few  of  them  there  are; 
how  they  are  placed  in  a  position  to  intercept;  what 
kinds  of  wealth  they  intercept,  and  to  what  an  extent 
they  intercept  it. 

A  most  useful  and  obliging  term,  this  "Inter- 
ceptor," my  dear  Wells.  You  could  not  have  chosen 
a  better  word  for  our  purpose,  as  we  shall  find,  if 
we  use  it,  not  carelessly  and  loosely  as  you  have  done, 
but  carefully,  and  discerningly,  and  with  our  eyes 
wide  open  to  facts.  We  will  track  these  interceptors 
to  their  lairs  and  hunt  them  down.  We  will  turn 
them  inside  out  and  learn  all  about  them.  They 
claim  a  letter  all  to  themselves.  I  will  therefore 
release  you  for  the  time,  and  bid  you  prepare  for  a 
thorough  examination  of  "Interceptors"  and  "In- 
tercepting" in  my  next  letter.  Meantime,  sus- 
pensively  yours, 

Henry  Arthur  Jones. 
February  25,  1921. 


LETTER  FIFTEEN. 
THE  INTERCEPTORS  OF  WEALTH. 

My  Dear  Wells, — 

While  writing  these  letters  to  you,  I  have  many 
times  had  occasion  to  fear  that  your  giant  mind  does 
not  mirror  any  approximately  correct  image  of  the 
concatenation  of  things  in  the  world  outside  it. 
Especially  am  I  distressed  to  think  that  your  mental 
retina  is  obscured  with  a  false  representation  of  the 
interception  and  the  interceptors  of  wealth. 

Let  us  settle  down  to  the  earnest  consideration  of 
this  important  question.  Once  more,  'Tenshun! — 
POP  I — I  like  this  office  of  flapper — in  the  Laputan 
sense. 

Make  a  vast  picture  to  yourself.  Imagine  all  the 
desirable  concrete  palpable  things  there  are  in  the 
world  that  can  be  counted  as  wealth :  food,  dresses, 
houses,  furniture,  jewels,  motor  cars,  horses,  books, 
wines,  toys — everything  that  any  inhabitant  of  the 
earth  may  wish  to  possess  and  make  use  of  and 
enjoy.  The  immensely  greater  part  of  this  wealth, 
nearly  all  of  it,  is  being  constantly  consumed,  and  is 
being  constantly  reproduced.  It  is  constantly  chang- 
ing hands  and  passing  from  one  inhabitant  of  the 

194 


The  Interceptors  of  Wealth       195 

earth  to  some  other  inhabitant  of  the  earth.  It  is 
in  a  state  of  eternal  flux,  and  quantities  of  it,  large 
or  small,  huge  accumulations  of  it,  or  mere  bits  and 
sweepings  of  all  sorts  and  sizes,  are,  under  con- 
stantly changing  and  diverse  circumstances,  coming 
actually  into  the  possession,  or  passing  within  the 
reach,  or  near  the  reach,  or  within  the  sight,  or  can 
be  figured  In  the  envious  imagination,  of  every  in- 
habitant of  this  earth.  I  do  not  mention  the  soil  of 
the  earth,  or  such  abstract  things  as  educational  ad- 
vantages and  social  influence.  I  am  ready  to  prove 
that  if  they  could  be  brought  into  the  account,  they 
would  not  affect  my  argument  or  my  conclusions. 
Nor  need  we,  for  our  present  purpose,  differen- 
tiate between  wealth  that  Is  acquired  by  personal 
exertion,  and  wealth  that  is  inherited  or  received  by 
gift.  It  is  clear  that  the  State  cannot  prohibit  all 
inheritance  of  wealth.  It  is  equally  clear,  and  we 
are  all  agreed,  that  large  accumulations  of  wealth 
should  be  heavily  taxed  upon  the  death  of  their 
possessor.  The  amount  of  death  duties  should  be 
fixed  at  the  point  where  it  will  cause  a  disadvan- 
tageous or  dangerous  reaction  upon  the  general 
business  activities  and  enterprises  of  the  community, 
to  raise  them  more  highly.  And  this  point  will 
always  be  variable  and  obscure  and  disputable.  For 
the  purposes  of  our  present  inquiry,  we  need  not 
here  make  any  distinction  between  wealth  that  is 
personally  acquired,   and  wealth   that  is  inherited. 


196  My  Dear  Wells 

Now  my  dear  Wells,  I  hope  you  have  formed  a 
rough  mental  picture  of  all  this  wealth  of  various 
kinds,  and  of  these  two  thousand  millions  of  men 
and  women,  who  are  all  of  them  in  actual  possession, 
or  within  reach,  or  out  of  reach,  of  some  quite  small, 
or  of  some  considerable  portion,  or  of  some  huge 
accumulation  of  it.  It  will  help  us  to  realize  the 
general  situation,  if  we  picture  to  ourselves  a  huge 
river,  a  Mississippi,  replenished  from  the  frozen 
mountain  resources  of  Nature,  in  a  constantly  chang- 
ing stream  of  wealth  of  all  kinds,  fed  on  both  sides 
with  innumerable  tributaries  of  all  sizes  from  broad 
streams  to  the  merest  trickling  rivulets,  all  of  them 
flowing  and  charged  with  constantly  changing  wealth 
of  all  kinds.  All  along  the  banks  of  all  these  streams 
from  the  head  of  the  smallest  rivulet  to  the  broad 
flood  at  the  mouth  of  the  great  river,  are  thickly 
crowded  the  two  thousand  millions,  all  the  inhabi- 
tants of  the  earth,  jostling  each  other  for  the  best 
available  places  on  the  banks  of  that  stream  which 
is  most  accessible  to  them,  so  that  they  may  draw 
from  it  some  portion  of  the  wealth  that  is  floating 
by.  Some  of  the  two  thousand  millions  are  so  badly 
placed  that  with  their  utmost  exertions  they  can 
barely  scoop  out  a  few  cupfuls  to  meet  their  neces- 
sities. Others  are  so  advantageously  placed  that 
they  can  easily  divert  thousands  of  gallons  of  over- 
flow to  fructify  their  private  pleasure  gardens. 

The  metaphor  will  hold  good  if  we  represent  to 


The  Interceptors  of  Wealth      197 

ourselves  that  the  appetites  and  demands  of  the  two 
thousand  millions  of  strugglers  on  the  banks  are  so 
great  that  the  stream  is  always  and  everywhere  in 
danger  of  running  shallow,  and  in  many  places  of 
being  dried  up.  If  the  waters  at  any  favoured  spot 
run  higher  than  usual  and  afford  the  lucky  denizens 
a  supply  larger  than  their  needs,  they  immediately 
multiply  in  numbers,  and  themselves  reduce  and  de- 
feat their  own  advantages.  I  hope  you  realize  in 
your  mind  the  large  rough  picture  I  have  drawn, 
which  faithfully  represents  the  attitude  of  all  the 
inhabitants  of  the  earth  towards  the  wealth  of  all 
sorts  that  there  is  upon  and  within  the  earth. 

I  need  your  very  careful  attention  here,  so  I  flap 
you — POP ! — Please  to  notice,  my  dear  Wells,  that 
every  one  of  these  two  thousand  millions  is  an  inter- 
ceptor of  "wealth.  For  the  moment  we  will  not  in- 
quire what  the  fair  share  of  any  individual  should 
be,  or  whether  any  or  many  of  the  two  thousand 
millions  are  intercepting  more  than  their  fair  share 
of  the  general  stream  of  wealth.  To  a  very  small, 
or  to  a  very  large  amount,  fairly  or  unfairly,  every 
inhabitant  of  the  earth  is  intercepting  some  portion 
of  the  available  wealth  of  the  earth  every  hour  of 
his  life.  He  appropriates  to  his  own  use  some  de- 
sirable thing  or  things  which  would  otherwise  be 
intercepted  and  appropriated  by  somebody  else. 

Now  turn  to  your  reply  to  Mr.  Churchill.  For 
your  own  purpose,  in  order  that  you  may  build  up 


198  My  Dear  Wells 

a  Collectlvist  State  in  a  vasty  vague  region  in  a  vasty 
vague  future,  you  imply  and  take  for  a  proved  fact, 
that  today  all  the  rich  and  all  the  powerful  men  on 
the  earth  are  dishonestly  intercepting  wealth  and 
influence  that  other  men  who  worked  without  any 
reward  or  thought  of  reward,  "created"  at  some 
unspecified  date  or  dates  for  the  use  and  benefit  of 
mankind  generally.  That  is  what  you  affirm,  or 
affirm  to  the  extent  that  you  make  it  a  sweeping  in- 
dictment against  all  rich  and  all  powerful  men  and 
arraign  them  for  being  thieves,  and  oppressors,  and 
spoilers  of  mankind,  boom!  boom  I  boom!  hoot  I 
hoot!   hoot!   howl!   howl!   howl! 

To  begin  with,  the  very  great  part  of  the  world 
wealth  which  every  one  of  us,  in  different  degrees, 
and  according  to  the  more  or  less  favourable  posi- 
tions we  occupy,  is  intercepting  and  appropriating — 
the  very  great  part  of  all  this  wealth  is  destroyed 
and  renewed  from  day  to  day,  from  year  to  year. 
It  doesn't  take  long  to  destroy  all  the  wealth  there 
is  in  any  country.  Lenin  told  the  Russian  workers 
that  all  the  rich  men  and  all  the  powerful  men  had 
intercepted  wealth  that  belonged  to  them.  Lenin 
advised  the  workers  to  intercept  it  back  again.  When 
they  tried  to  intercept  it  back,  all  the  wealth  melted 
away.  Lenin,  with  your  active  sympathy,  is  now 
trying  to  intercept  more  wealth  that  he  may  melt  it 
away. 

Your  major  premise  that  rich  and  powerful  men 


The  Interceptors  of  Wealth      199 

are  the  only  interceptors,  is  plainly  false,  my  dear 
Wells,  and  all  that  you  build  upon  it  is  vasty  vague 
inspissated  nonsense.  You  see  that,  don't  you? 
You  don't  see  it?    Well,  I  must  show  you. 

POP !  Take  notice,  my  dear  Wells,  that  every 
man,  woman  and  child  on  the  face  of  the  earth  is 
an  interceptor  of  wealth  every  day  of  his  life.  The 
poor  half  paid  sweated  seamstress,  who  very  ob- 
viously does  not  intercept  her  fair  share,  does  yet 
intercept  her  miserable  pittance.  She  may  intercept 
less  in  a  year  than  a  jewelled  furcoated  courtesan 
may  intercept  in  one  evening.  Nevertheless  they  are 
both  interceptresses,  and  take  out  of  the  general 
stream  of  wealth  certain  things  for  their  own  use. 

I  have  presented  an  extreme  contrast  of  two 
women,  one  of  whom,  by  the  disadvantage  of  her 
position  on  the  banks  of  the  stream,  is  unable  to  in- 
tercept sufficient  for  a  bare  livelihood  in  return  for 
useful  service  rendered  to  the  community,  and  the 
other,  who  by  the  advantage  of  her  position  on  the 
bank,  is  able  to  intercept  a  great  quantity  of  wealth 
in  return  for  corrupting  and  polluting  the  commu- 
nity. We  all  allow  there  are  grievous  cases  of 
plainly  unfair  interception  of  wealth.  Let  us  redress 
as  many  of  them  as  we  can.  We  shall  find  it 
a  difficult  and  complicated  task.  Frankly  I  can- 
not see  how  even  so  monstrously  unfair  an  inter- 
ception of  wealth  as  is  manifest  in  the  seamstress 
and  the  courtesan,  can  be  dealt  with  by  any  general 


200  My  Dear  Wells 

law.  How  do  you  propose  in  your  Collectlvist 
State  to  ensure  that  a  pretty  young  dissolute  woman 
shall  not  intercept  more  wealth  and  influence  than  a 
poor  virtuous  ugly  old  one  ?    Think  it  over. 

But  in  the  overwhelming  majority  of  cases,  there 
is  no  such  easy  way  of  distinguishing  between  what  is 
a  fair  and  what  is  an  unfair  interception  of  wealth. 
This  is  our  first  difficulty.  I  daresay  you  have 
solved  it  all  in  your  study.  But  trot  your  theories 
out  of  your  study  into  the  actual  world,  and  set  them 
to  work  amongst  actual  men  and  women. 

Take  yourself  for  instance.  Under  the  social 
order  and  British  Government  which  protect  you, 
and  which  you  constantly  abuse,  you  have  intercepted 
from  the  general  stream  of  wealth  that  flowed  within 
your  reach,  many  desirable  pieces  of  private  prop- 
erty, amongst  other  things  a  motor  car  and  cosy 
dividends.  Are  you  quite  sure,  my  dear  Wells,  that 
you  have  not  intercepted  more  than  your  fair  share 
of  wealth?  Are  you  quite  sure  that  your  motor  car 
ought  not  to  belong  to  some  more  deserving  writer — 
myself  for  instance?  I  am  quite  sure  that  you  and 
I  should  place  very  different  estimates  upon  the 
amount  of  wealth  that  you  ought  to  intercept  in 
payment  for  your  social  philosophy. 

When  you  begin  to  study  this  large  question,  my 
dear  Wells,  you  will  see  that  in  the  very  great 
majority  of  cases  there  is  no  possible  way  of  de- 
ciding what  is  fair  and  what  is  unfair  interception 


The  Interceptors  of  Wealth      201 

of  wealth  from  the  general  stream.  We  make 
alarmingly  different  estimates  of  what  Is  a  fair  inter- 
ception of  wealth,  according  as  to  whether  it  is 
an  interception  by  ourselves  or  by  our  class,  or 
by  somebody  else  or  some  other  class.  Your 
estimate  in  your  reply  to  Mr.  Churchill  Is  that  all 
interception  of  wealth  and  Influence  by  rich  and 
powerful  men  is  unfair.  If  you  were  living  in  the 
real  world  Instead  of  In  your  world  of  modern  ideas 
and  theories,  and  if  you  could  intercept  back  again 
from  all  the  rich  and  powerful  men  all  the  wealth 
which  according  to  you  they  have  unfairly  inter- 
cepted, you  would  still  find  yourself  confronted  with 
the  plaguy  question,  as  to  what  deserving  person 
should  next  be  allowed  to  intercept  it,  and  in  what 
proportions.  While  you  were  setting  up  your 
machinery  to  solve  these  two  questions,  all  the 
wealth  would  melt  away,  as  it  has  done  in  Russia, 
and  as  it  will  do  in  your  CoUectlvIst  State  if  you 
ever  get  it  started. 

A  terribly  difficult,  complicated  question  this,  my 
dear  Wells,  as  to  how  we  can  make  a  just  estimate 
of  what  amount  of  wealth  any  Individual  one  of  us 
should  be  allowed  to  intercept,  and  as  to  how  we 
can  stop  all  the  people  who  are  intercepting  more 
than  their  fair  quantities!  We  arc  all  the  more 
dismayed  when  we  find  that  often,  even  in  the 
grossest,  most  palpable  cases  of  unfair  interception, 
we  cannot  get  at  the  rascals  without  bringing  new 


202  My  Dear  Wells 

evils  upon  innocent  interceptors,  and  without  in- 
flicting wider  injury  and  injustice  than  we  are  seek- 
ing to  remedy. 

That  was  what  we  discovered  when  we  tried  to 
make  our  war  profiteers  disgorge  their  filthy  unjust 
plunder.  If  ever  there  was  a  class  of  unfair  inter- 
ceptors who  deserved  to  be  brought  to  account,  and 
whom  it  seemed  easy  to  bring  to  account,  and  to 
visit  with  the  utmost  punishment  and  mark  with 
lasting  infamy,  it  was  these  greedy  scoundrels — the 
war  profiteers.  But  we  found  that  we  couldn't  get 
at  them.  We  couldn't  sort  them  out  from  other 
interceptors  of  wealth  who  had  perhaps  gained  much 
from  the  war,  but  who  had  rendered  such  valuable 
service  to  the  country  that  it  was  impossible  to  deny 
them  a  large  reward.  We  had  to  let  the  profiteers 
escape  with  their  plunder,  because  no  line  could  be 
drawn  between  the  guilty  and  innocent  interceptors, 
or  between  fair  and  unfair  intercepting  by  the  same 
interceptor. 

Of  course  you  could  have  solved  the  whole  matter 
in  your  study.  I  was  saying  to  Spofforth  only  this 
morning:  "There  is  no  social  problem  that  Wells 
cannot  solve  in  five  minutes — if  you  only  leave  him 
alone  in  his  study,  and  don't  raise  any  objections  to 
his  way  of  solving  it." 

Once  more — POP! — with  my  flapper's  rod  and 
bladder.  Please  observe,  my  dear  Wells,  that  your 
monstrous  assumption  that  rich  men  and  powerful 


The  Interceptors  of  Wealth      203 

men  are  the  only  unfair  interceptors  of  wealth,  is 
plainly  disproved  by  facts  every  day.  Recently, 
owing,  amongst  other  causes,  to  unwise  and  unfair 
land  legislation,  and  to  the  determination  of  our 
Minister  of  Education  to  ask  our  young  carpenters 
and  bricklayers  questions  about  Cicero,  instead  of 
teaching  them  so  far  as  possible  to  build  houses 
for  their  fellow  workers — owing  to  these  and 
other  causes,  there  has  been,  as  you  know,  a  great 
shortage  of  houses  for  our  working  men.  There  has 
also  been  a  great  shortage  of  houses  for  the  better 
classes.  But  never  mind  them.  Let  us  think  first 
of  the  working  classes,  seeing  that  they  suffer  most 
grievously  when  house  accommodation  is  short. 

Before  the  war,  it  was  a  fair  day's  work  for  a 
bricklayer  to  lay  from  1,000  to  1,400  bricks  a  day. 
Since  the  war  it  has  often  been  impossible  to  get 
many  of  our  bricklayers  to  lay  more  than  350  bricks 
a  day.  Yet  they  have  taken  for  this  quarter  day's 
work  a  full  day's  wages,  reckoned  upon  the  scale 
of  a  full  day's  work.  Do  you  or  do  you  not  consider 
that  such  bricklayers  are  unfair  interceptors  of 
wealth?     You  do,  or  you  do  not? 

A  rich  and  powerful  man  has  exploited  (in  the 
best  sense  of  the  word)  a  large  slice  of  land  in  one 
of  our  African  colonics,  and  under  white  supervi- 
sion, has  exploited  (In  the  best  sense  of  the  word) 
many  of  the  natives,  and  has  set  them  to  work  gath- 
ering   nuts,    from    whence    is    taken    the    fat    for 


204  ^y  I^ear  Wells 

margarine,  thus  supplying  many  of  our  English 
workers  with  a  cheap  and  nutritious  food.  He  has 
paid  the  natives  good  wages  according  to  their  cir- 
cumstances, has  made  them  comfortable  according 
to  their  standards  of  comfort,  and  has  introduced 
amongst  them  some  rudiments  of  civilization.  By 
these  means  he  has  "created"  a  comparatively  large 
amount  of  wealth  for  the  natives,  has  cheapened 
food  for  English  workers,  and  has  intercepted  a 
considerable  amount  of  wealth  for  himself.  Do 
you  consider  that  in  this  transaction,  he  is  an  unfair 
interceptor  of  wealth?    You  do,  or  you  do  not? 

Ponder  all  these  things,  my  dear  Wells.  Ponder 
also  that  when  you  start  your  Collectivist  State,  you 
will  have  to  estimate,  or  to  get  a  bureau  of  officials 
to  estimate,  what  amount  of  wealth  every  individual 
in  it  is  to  be  allowed  to  intercept,  and  what  in  each 
transaction  is  a  fair  interception.  Next  you  will 
have  to  find  some  means  of  enforcing  your  rates  of 
interception,  and  of  punishing  unfair  interceptors. 
Think  it  all  out  carefully  before  you  start  your  Col- 
lectivist State.  You'll  need  a  vast  number  of  giant 
minds  like  your  own  to  set  it  going,  and  a  vaster 
number  to  keep  it  going.  Before  it  has  been  run- 
ning a  week,  it  will  be  apparent  to  you  that  our 
present  rich  interceptors,  unfair  and  unscrupulous 
as  many  of  them  are,  do  on  the  whole,  in  this  very 
imperfect  world  of  ours,  intercept  a  much  smaller 
proportion  of  the  total  amount  of  wealth  "created" 


The  Interceptors  of  Wealth      205 

than  will  be  intercepted  by  the  numerous  officials 
who  will  have  to  be  paid  in  your  Collectivist  State 
for  seeing  that  nobody  intercepts  more  than  his  fair 
share.  It  should  also  be  plain  to  you  that  in  your 
Collectivist  State  very  little  wealth  will  be  "created," 
for  you  will  take  away  the  main  incentive  for  "cre- 
ating" wealth  at  all. 

Think  this  out  in  all  its  bearings,  my  dear  Wells. 
You  have  thought  it  out?  Think  it  all  out  again. 
Enlighten  the  whole  problem  for  yourself  by  re- 
membering that  the  staple  of  human  conduct  and 
character  remains  much  the  same,  and  cannot  be  sud- 
denly or  considerably  improved.  Graft,  backshish, 
bribery,  venality,  jobbery,  baseness,  corruption,  have 
always  infested  all  the  roads  and  paths  of  human 
intercourse,  and  like  highwaymen,  have  sprung  upon 
the  travellers  and  called  upon  them  to  stand  and 
deliver.  In  all  questions  of  economics  you  are  a 
very  simple-minded  man  led  away  by  your  theories, 
but  I  cannot  think  you  so  simple  as  to  believe  that 
in  your  Collectivist  State,  new  forms  and  practices 
of  bribery  and  graft  will  not  creep  in  and  utterly 
impoverish  your  Paradise.  If  you  are  so  simple 
minded  as  to  believe  that  your  Collectivist  State  will 
not  pay  a  monstrous  toll  in  new  forms  of  bribery  and 
graft,  I  entreat  you  to  acquaint  yourself  with  the  ter- 
rible cost,  the  terrible  inefficiency  and  the  gigantic 
blundering  of  the  Socialist  legislation  that  was  neces- 
sarily introduced  during  the  war. 


206  My  Dear  Wells 

'Tenshun!  my  dear  Wells  I — POP! — I  am  about 
to  submit  to  you  a  rough  calculation  which  I  cannot 
prove,  and  which  you  cannot  disprove.  We  all 
allow  that  there  is  an  appalling  amount  of  hideous 
graft  and  corruption  and  oppression  in  our  present 
commercial  world.  Owing  to  the  enormously  in- 
creased number  and  size  and  cost  of  certain  com- 
mercial enterprises;  owing  to  the  universal  publicity 
which  today  is  thrown  upon  all  large  transactions, 
movements  and  events;  owing  perhaps  most  of  all, 
to  the  fact  that  when  volumes  and  millions  of  money 
are  being  poured  into  somebody's  pockets,  many  of 
us  are  subconsciously  uneasy  because  some  part  of 
these  vast  sums  cannot  be  intercepted  into  our  own 
pockets — owing  to  these  causes,  we  are  all  much 
more  aware  of  the  existence  of  graft,  more  alert  to 
watch  it,  more  alive  to  its  evil  effects,  and  more 
alarmed  at  its  magnitude. 

But  consider  the  present  enormous  volume  and 
amount  of  the  world's  commercial  transactions,  mul- 
tiplied as  they  are  out  of  all  computation  as  com- 
pared with  the  volume  and  amount  of  the  world's 
commercial  transactions  a  hundred  years  ago.  Next 
consider  the  more  backward  countries  of  today 
where  commercial  transactions  are  on  a  relatively 
small  scale,  and  are  conducted  by  ways  and  methods 
more  nearly  approaching  the  ways  and  methods  of 
a  hundred  years  ago.  I  think  that  those  who  suffi- 
ciently know  these  backward  countries  would  esti- 


The  Interceptors  of  Wealth      207 

mate,  that  in  other  days  the  old-fashioned  forms  of 
graft  intercepted  a  larger  percentage  of  the  total 
sum  of  the  monetary  transactions  than  the  modern 
forms  of  graft  intercept  in  advanced  countries  today. 
It  is  of  course  impossible  to  make  anything  approach- 
ing an  exact  calculation.  But  I  believe  that  those 
who  are  best  qualified  to  make  a  rough  estimate, 
would  give  it  as  their  opinion,  that  though  there  is 
an  abominable  increase  in  the  total  amount  of 
abominable  graft  levied  today  upon  the  community, 
it  is  probably  less  in  proportion  to  the  sum  total  of 
the  monetary  transactions  than  in  many  former 
periods  of  history. 

This  probability  does  not  absolve  us  from  con- 
stant vigilance  and  constant  war  upon  all  those 
forms  of  graft  and  unfair  interception  of  wealth 
that  can  be  clearly  discriminated  and  effectively 
crushed  without  bringing  worse  evils  upon  the  com- 
munity. It  does  warn  us  to  refrain  from  violently 
pulling  down  our  present  social  order  in  the  foolish 
hope  that  we  can  build  up  a  new  social  order  that 
will  give  no  shelter  to  graft  and  unfair  interception 
of  wealth. 

One  thing  more,  my  dear  Wells,  I  entreat  you  to 
notice. — POP! — Many  of  these  large  accumulations 
of  wealth  are  always  melting  down;  all  of  them  are 
constantly  overflowing  into  the  smaller  rivulets  of 
commercial  intercourse,  and  there  dispensing  benefits 
to  more  or  less  deserving  persons.    There  is  a  soul 


2o8  My  Dear  Wells 

of  goodness  in  things  evil.  Follow  me  a  little  closely 
here.    You  are  personally  concerned. 

I  suppose  none  of  us  has  a  very  soft  corner  in  his 
heart  for  the  meat  packers  of  Chicago.  But  during 
the  war,  one  firm  supplied  the  English  Government 
with  meat  for  our  soldiers  at  a  total  cost  which  was 
some  millions  of  pounds  less  than  the  English  Gove- 
ernment  could  itself  have  supplied  the  meat.  Those 
millions  of  pounds  were  thus  saved  to  English  tax- 
payers, of  whom  you  are  one.  Therefore  your  own 
taxes  were  reduced,  not  indeed  to  any  considerable 
extent.  Still  by  that  operation,  and  by  similar  opera- 
tions, your  taxes  have  been  a  little  reduced,  and  you 
are  thereby  a  little  better  able  to  keep  a  motor  car, 
and  perhaps  to  add  a  little  to  your  cosy  dividends. 

There  is  a  concatenation  and  correlation  of  all 
these  things,  my  dear  Wells,  which  you  do  not  per- 
ceive. Tilt  your  mind  toward  facts.  If  you  cannot 
grasp  and  embrace  them,  being,  as  they  are,  the 
implacable  foes  of  your  theories,  yet  tilt  your  mind 
towards  them.  Conceive  it  as  possible  that  though 
you  may  refuse  to  embrace  facts,  they  may  one  day 
quite  irresistibly  embrace  you.  Turn  over  all  the 
papers  that  you  wrote  during  the  war,  and  see  how 
many  facts  that  you  prophesied  against  have  since 
embraced  you,  and  hold  you  in  their  grip.  There- 
fore, my  dear  Wells,  place  yourself  in  a  respectful 
attitude  of  possible  future  receptivity  towards  facts. 

I  think  I  have  shown  you  that  you  have  formed  a 


The  Interceptors  of  Wealth      209 

crude  and  wrong  notion  of  the  interception  of 
wealth,  and  of  the  persons  who  are  intercepting  it. 
It  is  both  false  and  absurd  to  represent  all  the  rich 
and  all  the  powerful  men  as  the  sole  interceptors 
of  wealth  that  other  people  have  created  for  the  use 
of  mankind  generally.    You  see  that,  don't  you? 

All  of  us  are  constant  interceptors  throughout  our 
life ;  and  all  of  us  at  times,  either  unconsciously  and 
inadvertently  or  consciously  and  dishonestly,  inter- 
cept from  the  general  stream  of  wealth  small  or 
large  amounts  which  do  not  fairly  and  rightly 
belong  to  us,  or  at  least  which  would  belong  to  some 
more  deserving  person  but  for  our  interception. 
The  first  difficulty  is  to  find  out  who  is  the  deserving 
person  or  persons  whom  we  ought  to  have  allowed 
to  intercept  these  sums,  standing  back  ourselves,  and 
being  thus  rendered  unable  to  pay  our  income  tax. 

This  difficulty  of  finding  out  who  are  the  deserving 
persons  who  ought  to  be  allowed  to  intercept  the 
sums  that  are  now  being  unfairly  intercepted,  and 
what  is  the  proportion  which  each  one  of  these 
deserving  persons  should  be  allowed  to  intercept, — 
(his  difficulty  increases  according  to  the  increase  of 
the  sums  in  question.  You,  my  dear  Wells,  would 
say  that  the  State  should  intercept  all  wealth  as  soon 
as  it  is  created.  But  then  the  greater  part  of  it 
melts  away,  leaving  a  vast  number  of  interceptors 
and  little  or  nothing  to  intercept.  If  any  consider- 
able portion  of  wealth  remains  after  it  has  been 


210  My  Dear  Wells 

intercepted  by  the  State,  you  will  still  find  yourself 
confronted  by  the  same  insoluble  problem — who 
are  the  lucky  or  the  deserving  persons  who  are  now 
to  be  allowed  to  intercept  it  from  the  State  for  their 
own  use,  and  in  what  proportions? 

Granted,  however,  that  we  have  found  it  possible 
to  settle  how  much  each  individual  or  class  is  to 
be  allowed  to  intercept,  we  are  met  with  the  further 
difficulty  of  providing  official  machinery  to  carry  out 
our  awards.  Having  provided  the  machinery,  is 
there  one  ten-thousandth  part  of  a  chance  that  it 
will  work  for  a  week?  Revolve  these  things  in  your 
giant  mind,  my  dear  Wells. 

Before  advancing  the  argument  a  step  further, 
I  will  give  myself  the  welcome  relaxation,  and  you 
the  salutary  stimulus  of  an  intromissary — POP! — 
I  didn't  hurt  you?  I  am  not  putting  my  full  strength 
of  arm  into  these  admonitory  smacks.  I  have  prom- 
ised to  let  you  off  easily.  But  I  notice  that  your 
cheek  seems  to  be  tingling  from  the  repeated  visits 
of  my  flapper's  bauble.  You  might  now  perhaps 
obey  the  Scriptural  injunction,  and  turn  your  other 
cheek  to  the  smiter. 

I  would  have  you  notice,  my  dear  Wells,  that  not 
only  is  every  one  of  the  two  thousand  millions  of  the 
inhabitants  of  the  earth  an  interceptor  of  wealth, 
but  that  with  comparatively  few  exceptions,  every 
one  of  them  is  intercepting  as  much  as  he  conve- 
niently can.    Further,  again  with  comparatively  few 


The  Interceptors  of  Wealth      211 

exceptions,  none  of  these  two  thousand  millions, 
however  great  the  quantity  of  wealth  he  may  be 
intercepting,  considers  that  he  is  not  justified  in 
intercepting  as  much  more  as  comes  within  his  reach. 
Further,  again  with  comparatively  few  exceptions, 
none  of  these  two  thousand  millions,  however  great 
the  quantity  he  is  intercepting,  considers  that  he  is 
intercepting  more  than  his  fair  share.  Notice  also 
that  these  exceptions  are  chiefly  amongst  those  whose 
parents  and  ancestors  have  Intercepted  more  wealth 
than  their  descendants  have  any  pressing  need  to 
appropriate  to  their  own  use. 

Yet  once  again.  Every  one  of  these  two  thou- 
sand millions  Is  himself  the  judge  of  how  much  he 
is  entitled  to  intercept,  and  he  generally  fixes  this 
amount  at  something  considerably  higher  than  the 
amount  he  is  actually  Intercepting,  and  rarely  at 
anything  less  than  the  utmost  amount  which  he  may 
possibly  be  able  to  intercept.  How  many  men  have 
you  met,  my  dear  Wells,  who  do  not  Intercept  all 
that  conveniently  comes  in  their  way  because  they 
feel  they  ought  to  leave  some  part  of  it  to  be  inter- 
cepted by  some  more  deserving  person?  How  many 
men  have  you  met,  who  being  uncomfortably  aware 
that  they  are  intercepting  more  than  their  fair  share 
of  wealth,  do  as  a  matter  of  fact  refrain  from  inter- 
cepting that  portion  of  it  which  they  consider  they 
cannot  justly  claim  as  their  due?  Would  you  think 
it  wise  of  them  to  refrain  from  intercepting  that 


212  My  Dear  Wells 

portion,  on  the  very  doubtful  chance  that  It  might  be 
intercepted  by  a  more  deserving  person,  and  not,  as 
would  be  more  likely,  by  some  cunning  rascal  who  is 
already  intercepting  more  than  his  fair  share? 

A  very  complex  matter,  this  interception  of 
wealth,  my  dear  Wells,  and  very  difficult  to  solve  1 
Except  of  course  when  you  solve  it  in  your  study  by 
simply  dividing  all  the  interceptors  Into  sheep  and 
goats — rich  men  who  are  dishonestly  intercepting  all 
the  wealth  that  belongs  to  mankind,  and  poor  men 
who  are  really  entitled  to  intercept  it  all,  but  can 
scarcely  intercept  anything  because  the  rich  men 
have  already  intercepted  almost  everything.  Now 
__POP  !— 

I  want  you  to  tilt  your  giant  mind  towards  one 
or  two  plain  facts.  If  you  won't  tilt  it  yourself,  let 
me  tilt  it  for  you.  The  first  plain  fact  is  this:  How- 
ever many  of  these  two  thousand  millions  of  inter- 
ceptors of  wealth  may  be  aware  that  they  are  inter- 
cepting a  larger  amount  of  wealth  than  is  their  share, 
however  many  of  them  may  be  amiably  disposed  to 
stand  back  a  bit,  and  allow  unspecified  and  proble- 
matically more  deserving  persons  to  push  in  and 
intercept  that  surplus  which  they  are  unfairly  inter- 
cepting— as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  impossible  for 
the  very  great  majority  of  these  amiable  interceptors 
to  carry  out  their  good  intentions.  Further,  if  they 
could,  it  would  be  a  quite  futile  piece  of  useless 
generosity  on  their  part. 


The  Interceptors  of  Wealth      213 

Imagine  to  yourself  the  two  thousand  millions  of 
interceptors,  all  thickly  crowded  and  jostling  each 
other  for  the  best  accessible  places  on  the  banks  of 
our  Mississippi,  and  of  all  its  tributaries  up  to  the 
remote  source  of  the  smallest  rivulet,  where  the  poor 
seamstress  stands  trying  to  dip  her  cup  into  the  mere 
trickle  of  wealth  that  flows  by  her.  We  will  our- 
selves give  her  a  spoonful  or  two  out  of  our  own 
pail,  to  relieve  her  most  pressing  wants.  But  we 
cannot  give  spoonfuls  to  all  the  poor  seamstresses, 
or  our  own  pail  would  soon  be  empty.  The  poor 
seamstress  is  but  one  out  of  a  vast  crowd  of  indi- 
gents. The  banks  of  the  tiniest  rivulet  are  as  thickly 
peopled  with  interceptors  as  the  broadest  reaches 
of  the  giant  river,  more  thickly  crowded,  for  the 
poor  multiply  the  fastest.  From  this  fact  it  follows 
that  if  by  some  master-stroke  of  economic  legerde- 
main, we  could  transport  all  the  poor  and  put  them 
into  good  positions  down  the  stream,  yet  in  a  very 
short  time  the  banks  of  the  rivulets  would  be  as 
crowded  as  ever  with  needy  interceptors.  The  gen- 
eral situation  would  be  pretty  much  the  same. 
Charity  must  needs  do  her  best,  must  never  check 
her  warm  heart,  or  her  ready  hand.  But  do  what 
she  will,  she  can  but  palliate  and  alleviate.  The 
numbers  of  the  needy  and  desperate  interceptors  will 
remain  fairly  constant.  The  general  situation  will 
remain  the  same. 

Now  suppose  that  a  certain  number  of  conscience- 


214  My  Dear  Wells 

stricken  interceptors  realize  that  they  are  intercept- 
ing more  than  their  fair  share  of  the  wealth  that  is 
floating  by  them.  They  give  up  their  advantageous 
places  on  the  banks,  and  allow  a  number  of  the  less 
scrupulous  interceptors  behind  them  to  take  their 
places.  Much  about  the  same  quantities  and  kinds 
of  wealth  will  be  intercepted,  but  on  the  whole  by 
less  worthy  interceptors,  while  the  more  worthy 
unselfish  interceptors  will  find  themselves  jostled  into 
less  advantageous  positions,  some  of  them  being 
pushed  along  till  they  reach  the  impoverished  seam- 
stresses. Their  generosity  will  have  been  quite 
futile.    The  general  situation  will  remain  the  same. 

Notice,  my  dear  Wells,  that  the  overwhelming 
majority  of  the  interceptors  of  wealth,  that  is  to  say 
of  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth,  are  wedged  in 
positions  on  the  banks  of  the  various  streams,  which 
they  cannot  give  up,  which  they  dare  not  give  up 
except  at  the  risk  of  being  pushed  into  less  advan- 
tageous positions,  so  constant  is  the  struggle  against 
them,  not  merely  for  advantageous  positions,  but 
very  often  for  positions  which  will  scarcely  give 
them  a  livelihood. 

It  is  the  universal  instinct  of  self-preservation 
which  urges  the  great  majority  of  these  interceptors 
to  hold  fast  to  their  present  positions,  and  to  be 
always  seeking  for  better  positions  where  they  can 
intercept  more  wealth.  Search  into  this  matter  and 
you  will  find  that  in  planning  your  Collectivist  State 


The  Interceptors  of  .Wealth      215 

you  have  Ignored  the  constant  pressure  of  this  uni- 
versal instinct  of  self-preservation  upon  the  over- 
whelming majority  of  the  interceptors  of  wealth. 
It  is  a  fatal  defect  in  your  social  philosophy  that  you 
suppose  mankind  will  act  in  obedience  to  your  theo- 
ries, rather  than  according  to  the  prompting  of  their 
dominant  instincts. 

Tilt  your  mind  towards  this  fact,  my  dear  Wells, 
that  in  any  State  composed  of  actual  men  and  women 
as  we  know  them,  whatever  amount  of  wealth  any 
one  of  its  individual  members  may  be  intercepting, 
whether  large  or  small,  whether  fairly  or  unfairly, 
the  great  majority  of  them  will,  according  to  their 
opportunities,  continue  to  intercept  as  much  wealth 
as  they  conveniently  can,  and  will  be  always  seeking 
for  positions  where  they  can  intercept  more  wealth. 
This  does  not  imply  that  average  human  nature  is 
growing  more  base  and  selfish  and  covetous  than  it 
has  always  been.  It  does  imply  that  the  instinct 
of  self-preservation  urges  us  all  to  provide  for  our- 
selves and  our  families,  to  advance  ourselves  and  our 
families,  and  to  leave  the  widest  possible  margin  of 
safety  from  poverty  and  discomfort.  And  for  the 
most  of  us  that  margin  of  safety  will  never  be  wide 
enough. 

You  will  claim  that  your  plan  of  a  Collectivist 
State  allows  a  margin  of  safety  for  everybody.  The 
Lord  enlighten  your  understanding!  Let  me  show 
you  what  the  establishment  of  your  Collectivist  State 


2i6  My  Dear  Wells 

means.  Continue  to  picture  to  yourself  the  crowded 
two  thousand  millions  of  interceptors  of  wealtlT, 
jostling  in  their  different  positions  on  the  banks  of 
the  great  river  and  its  tributaries,  all  of  them  con- 
stantly employed  in  intercepting  the  most  varied  and 
the  most  unequal  quantities  of  wealth,  from  the  poor 
seamstress  to  the  multi-millionaire.  The  metaphor 
is  an  economical  truth  in  a  geographical  figure. 
Economically  it  is  exact. 

Notice  that  the  positions  of  every  one  of  these 
interceptors, — and  of  the  future  two  thousand  mil- 
lions and  more  of  interceptors  who  will  gradually 
take  their  places,  is  determined  by  the  configuration 
of  the  land.  There  are  the  great  mountains  behind 
them  where  are  stored  the  vast  frozen  resources  of 
Nature,  which  are  drawn  upon  to  form  the  various 
streams  which  flow  by  the  crowds  of  interceptors, 
through  the  high  bare  lands  where  the  little  rivulets 
begin  their  course,  down  by  slopes  and  gradients  to 
the  more  gently  sloping  fertile  plains  which  slope  to 
the  broad  river  mouth.  You  survey  the  scene,  and 
you  say:  "Here  is  a  monstrous  thing!  That  one 
man  should  be  allowed  to  intercept  thousands  of 
gallons,  while  another  man,  more  deserving,  can  only 
intercept  a  few  pints  I  I  will  change  all  this.  I  will 
abolish  these  shameful  inequalities.  In  the  future 
nobody  shall  intercept  more  than  his  fair  share. 
Stand  back  from  the  stream,  all  you  rich  intercep- 


The  Interceptors  of  Wealth      217 

tors  I  Let  all  the  poor  interceptors  take  your  places ! 
Meantime  I  will  send  in  an  army  of  officials  to  shovel 
the  land  perfectly  level,  and  to  cut  channels  of  equal 
depth  and  breadth  for  the  wealth  to  flow  in,  so  that 
each  of  you  can  have  equal  access  to  it,  and  each  of 
you  can  intercept  his  fair  share,  and  no  more." 

The  great  mass  of  the  impoverished  interceptors 
are  enthusiastically  in  favour  of  your  plan.  No 
wonder.  Every  one  of  them,  even  the  man  who  is 
fairly  comfortable,  is  convinced  that  he  is  not  inter- 
cepting his  fair  share.  They  immediately  try  to 
seize  the  more  favoured  places  of  the  rich  inter- 
ceptors, and  there  is  a  tremendous  scufile  and  con- 
fusion. While  the  rich  and  the  poor  interceptors 
are  fighting  for  the  best  places,  a  great  volume  of 
wealth  slips  out  of  the  reach  of  all  of  them,  and  is 
irrecoverably  lost.  Meantime  your  army  of  offi- 
cials have  set  to  work  to  alter  the  entire  configuration 
of  the  land,  to  make  it  perfectly  level,  and  to  cut  new 
equal  channels  for  the  wealth  to  flow  in.  They  build 
great  dams  to  stop  the  present  resources  from  flow- 
ing in  the  present  channels,  while  they  cut  the  new 
equal  channels.  They  soon  find  that  the  levelling 
of  the  land  is  altogether  too  gigantic  an  operation 
for  their  powers.  They  have  levelled  a  few  yards 
and  there  are  thousands  of  miles  yet  to  level.  The 
dams  they  have  built  in  order  that  they  may  level 
the   land,   have   blocked   up   the   vast   resources  of 


2i8  My  Dear  Wells 

Nature  which  rest  above  them,  frozen,  remote, 
inaccessible.  The  streams  of  wealth  have  ceased  to 
flow.  There  are  but  a  few  poor  tricklings  for  any- 
body to  intercept.  The  former  poor  interceptors 
perish  by  millions. 

Behold,  my  dear  Wells,  the  dreadful  picture  which 
shows  you  what  you  set  out  to  do  when  you  begin  to 
found  your  Collectivist  State.  It  is  a  rough  faithful 
picture  of  what  has  happened  in  Russia.  Lenin  may 
be  Marxian.  You  may  be  Collectivist.  You  are 
both  trying  to  level  the  whole  configuration  of 
Nature's  vast  continent  by  an  army  of  officials.  I 
read  in  this  morning's  paper  ("New  York  Times," 
March  2,  1 921)  the  latest  account  of  conditions  in 
Russia.  The  sum  of  her  past  horrors  and  miseries 
seems  a  petty  tale  compared  with  the  terrible  and 
ever  progressive  famine,  suffering,  disease  and 
misery  which  wrap  the  land  and  all  its  people  in  one 
black  universal  pall.  Take  two  or  three  items  out 
of  fifty  that  daunt  and  sicken  the  imagination  to 
conceive. 

"Twenty  million  peasants  are  starving." — half 
the  population  of  Great  Britain. 

"Agriculture  is  perishing.  Labour,  power,  ma- 
nure, milk  for  the  children — everything  is  perish- 
ing." 

For  a  taste  of  how  state  officialism  works  com- 
pared with  private  enterprise,  take  the  following: 
"Nineteen   institutions   have   to   be    gone    through 


The  Interceptors  of  Wealth      219 

before  a  small  amount  of  axle  grease  can  be 
obtained."  * 

"The  Revolts  against  the  Bolshevist  power  are 
being  suppressed  with  the  utmost  cruelty."  In 
England  we  pet  and  coddle  our  traitors. 

Not  very  encouraging  to  a  promoter  of  a  Collec- 
tivist  State  founded  upon  virtually  the  same  princi- 
ples, eh?  It  seems  to  establish  the  following  gen- 
eral principle  for  the  guidance  of  Socialists,  Commu- 
nists and  CoUectivists:  "When  private  property  is 
abolished,  and  private  enterprise  forbidden,  in  lieu 
of  a  population  of  unequally  prosperous  interceptors, 
a  state  of  affairs  is  rapidly  approached  where  every- 
body is  trying  to  intercept  everything,  and  nothing  is 
left  for  anybody  to  intercept." 

Whew !  Whew !  Whew !  I  wipe  my  forehead  as  I 
announce  the  end  of  our  discussion  upon  these  inter- 
ceptors of  wealth.  I  think  we  may  claim  that  our 
time  we  have  spent  upon  them  has  been  profitably 
employed.  You  have  learned  a  great  deal  about 
them,  haven't  you?  You  know  now  that  your  view 
that  all  rich  men  are  dishonest  interceptors  of  wealth, 
and  that  they  are  the  only  interceptors  of  wealth, 
is  quite  false  and  absurd.  You  understand  now  that 
we  are  all  interceptors  of  wealth,  and  that  the 
majority  of  mankind,  obeying  the  universal  instinct 

*  Yesterday,  May-Day,  at  a  big  demonstration  in  Hyde  Park, 
London,  resolutions  ivere  passed  "hailing  ivit/t  enthusiasm  the  suc- 
cess of  the  Russian  Soviet  Government."  O  my  brothers,  <u:ill  you 
not  learn?  2nd.  May,  ig2i. 


220  My  Dear  Wells 

of  self-preservation,  do  Intercept,  and  will  always 
intercept  as  much  as  comes  in  their  way.  You  won't 
again  use  the  words  "Interceptors  of  wealth"  in  a 
confused  vicious  sense  to  stir  up  class  hatred,  will 
you? 

Well,  I  hope  you  will  lay  this  lesson  to  heart. 
Don't  you  feel  refreshed  and  invigorated  by  these 
letters  of  mine,  my  dear  Wells?  Don't  you  feel 
that  they  take  you  into  a  clearer  atmosphere  where 
you  get  some  insight  into  the  universal  concatenation 
of  things?  Don't  you  feel  grateful  to  me  for  lifting 
you  out  of  the  regions  of  vasty  vagueness  where  you 
were  wandering,  and  planting  your  feet  on  firm 
ground?  It  cheers  me  to  think  that  you  recognize 
and  value  my  constant  labours  for  your  enlighten- 
ment. In  a  mood  of  anticipatory  gratitude  for  what 
I  may  further  say  to  you,  await  my  next  letter. 
Pertinaciously  yours, 

Henry  Arthur  Jones. 
March  4,  1921. 


LETTER  SIXTEEN. 
ARGUING  WITH  A  TURNIP. 

My  Dear  Wells, — 

I  hope  I  have  convinced  you  of  the  reckless  con- 
fusion and  radical  unsoundness  of  your  thinking  upon 
economic  matters  and  of  the  ruinous  mischief  of  your 
Collectivist  theories.  We  will  now  proceed  to  test 
the  quality  of  your  thinking  upon  world  politics,  and 
to  dissect  your  International  theories. 

Spofforth  has  fallen  asleep  in  his  armchair.  Is  he 
really  asleep,  or  is  he  only  shamming?  Is  he  cun- 
ningly waiting  in  ambush  till  we  moot  some  more 
than  usually  outrageous  fallacy  of  yours,  with  the 
intent  of  springing  out  upon  you,  and  putting  a  per- 
emptory and  tragic  end  to  your  further  emission  of 
fallacies?  That  shall  not  happen  if  I  can  protect 
you,  my  dear  Wells.  It  is  true  that  some  stern 
warning  is  needed  to  those  Englishmen  who  always 
think  virulently  against  their  own  country.  But  I 
would  not  have  you  sent  to  any  sudden  and  violent 
expiation.  I  would  have  you  spared  and  given  a 
chance  to  repent.  It  is  my  hope  and  endeavour  to 
make  a  good  British  citizen  of  you.  I  suppose  you 
don't   feel   inclined   to   sing  a   bar  or   two   of   the 

221 


222  My  Dear  Wells 

National  Anthem,  just  to  oblige  me,  and  to  soften 
Spofforth's  heart  towards  you,  if,  as  I  suspect,  he  is 
really  awake  under  his  closed  eyes?    Come  now! — 

Just  a  bar  or  two.     Pipe  up !  "God  save  our " 

You  won't?  Then  we  must  settle  down  to  a  rigorous 
examination  of  these  International  theories  of  yours. 

As  I  have  said,  and  as  events  daily  asseverate, 
there  is  but  one  question  before  the  civilized  world 
today — Patriotism  or  Internationalism?  Until  each 
nation  has  answered  that  question  within  its  own 
borders,  it  cannot  quiet  down  into  peace  and  security, 
but  must  needs  be  clashing  against  its  neighbours  in 
ever-growing  mutual  insecurity  and  torment  of  un- 
rest. 

We  are  now  about  to  address  ourselves  to  the 
consideration  of  the  most  important  matter  that  has 
engaged  us  during  these  conferences.  It  is  necessary 
that  I  should  have  the  fullest  measure  of  your  atten- 
tion, and  for  your  own  sake  I  will  take  no  risks.  I 
will  therefore  ask  you  please  to  submit  while  I  buffet 
you  with  my  flapper's  bauble  till  I  am  reasonably 
sure  that  you  are  wide  awake,  and  in  a  blessed 
state  of  receptivity  towards  facts.  POP!  POP! 
POP!  POP!  POP!  POP!  POP!  POP!  Hey! 
Hey!  My  arm  is  aching.  It's  no  sinecure,  my  dear 
Wells,  this  office  of  flapper  to  you — in  the  Laputan 
sense. 

Now,  'TenshunI 

Let  us  turn  again  to  this  inexhaustible  polypreg- 


Arguing  With  a  Turnip         223 

nant  reply  of  yours  to  Mr.  Winston  Churchill.  You 
bring  Innumerable  accusations  against  him  and 
against  the  social  order  which  he  represents.  You 
pour  out  these  charges  against  him,  dozens  of  them 
— he  has  "a  dread  of  a  coming  sanity,  a  coming 
supremacy  of  justice  and  order  throughout  the 
world," — and  so  on  In  rambling  multitudinous  inco- 
herency.  "A  coming  supremacy  of  justice  and  order 
throughout  the  world!"  That's  what  we  all  desire, 
what  all  of  us  who  are  honestly  working  and  honestly 
thinking,  are  seeking  to  obtain!  But  remember  that 
the  Kaiser  would  have  assured  you  that  he  also 
was  fighting  to  bring  about  a  "coming  supremacy  of 
justice  and  order  throughout  the  world."  You  talk, 
my  dear  Wells !  You  talk !  You  talk !  You  do  not 
frame  a  clear  intelligible  Indictment.  You  never 
attempt  to  define  or  substantiate  any  one  of  these 
vague  wholesale  charges.  You  talk!  You  talk! 
You  talk!  You  give  us  no  precise  Indication  of  how 
a  "supremacy  of  justice  and  order  throughout  the 
world"  are  to  be  secured,  except  vaguely  by  "hard 
constructive  work,  the  discipline  and  self-abnegation 
that  lie  before  us  all."  You  do  not  say  who  is  to  do 
the  hard  constructive  work,  what  kind  of  discipline  is 
to  be  enforced,  who  is  to  enforce  it,  who  Is  to  prac- 
tise the  self-abnegation.  Let  us  hope  it  will  not  be 
the  possessors  of  motor  cars  and  cosy  dividends. 
You  talk  I  You  talk,  my  dear  Wells  1  O  how  you 
talk  I 


224  ^^y  Dear  Wells 

However,  It  seems  that  Mr.  Churchill  Is  obstruct- 
ing and  delaying  this  coming  "supremacy  of  justice 
and  order  throughout  the  world"  which  is  to  be 
secured  by  the  operation  of  your  theories,  and  by  the 
practice  of  the  new  kind  of  honesty  which  you  and 
Lenin  have  invented.  But  owing  to  Mr.  Churchill 
and  other  wicked  obstructors,  you  say  there  is  a 
prospect  before  us  of  "war  and  war  and  more  war." 
You  admit,  however,  that  your  own  International 
CoUectivist  Paradise  cannot  be  achieved  by  peaceful 
means.  "Not  in  a  day,''  you  warn  us,  "not  without 
blood  and  toil  and  passion  is  a  new  order  brought 
into  the  world."  You  do  see  there  will  be  some 
fighting. 

In  justice  to  yourself  I  think  I  ought  to  wake 
Spofforth  and  tell  him  that  you  have  got  another 
glimmering.  Spofforth  grudges  you  the  smallest 
perception  of  facts.  I  am  always  pointing  out  to 
Spofforth  that,  purblind  though  you  may  be,  and 
contumaciously  impervious  to  any  fact  that  contra- 
dicts your  theories,  you  do  get  occasional  glimmer- 
ings. You  don't  follow  them  and  find  your  way  to 
the  light,  but  you  do  every  now  and  then  get  these 
stray  glimmerings.  That's  what  gives  me  hope  for 
you. 

In  any  case  you  tell  us  that  this  reign  of  Interna- 
tionalism, this  CoUectivist  Paradise  where  there  is 
to  be  a  world-wide  supremacy  of  justice  and  order, 
where  men  are  to  be  free  "from  error  and  passion," 


Arguing  With  a  Turnip        225 

where  wicked  adventurers  like  Mr.  Churchill  are  to 
be  rigorously  excluded,  where  there  is  to  be  a  per- 
fect economy  of  resources,  where  there  are  to  be 
"sane  adjustments"  against  every  possible  annoyance 
to  anybody,  where  large  delicious  omelettes  will 
grow  on  every  tree,  where  the  best  native  oysters 
will  multiply  in  everybody's  rain-water  tub — you  tell 
us,  my  dear  Wells,  that  this  Paradise  is  not  to  be 
obtained  without  our  fighting  for  it. 

I  wish  you  could  have  managed  the  affair  without 
bloodshed.  It  would  have  been  such  a  triumph  for 
your  theories.  It  seems  such  a  bad  start  to  begin 
with  fighting.  If  we  get  into  the  habit  of  fighting 
outside  our  Paradise,  how  can  we  be  sure  we  may 
not  keep  it  up  when  we  get  inside?  And  If  there  is 
to  be  a  fight  for  this  Paradise,  how  can  we  be  sure 
that  your  disciples  will  win?  Suppose  the  enemy 
forces  headed  by  Mr.  Churchill  should  give  your 
disciples  a  licking?  Then  there  wouldn't  be  any 
Paradise  at  all.  You  would  merely  have  sold  your 
disciples.  By  the  way,  your  main  charge  against  our 
present  social  order  is  that  it  leads  to  war.  Yet  you 
are  going  to  start  your  International  Paradise  by 
a  war  to  obtain  it.  How  you  flounder  in  self-contra- 
dictions ! 

Candidly,  my  dear  Wells,  I  don't  like  this  prospect 
which  you  open  up  to  us  of  fighting  for  our  Collec- 
tivist  Paradise.  I  don't  like  it  at  all.  However,  if 
there  is  to  be  fighting,  it's  as  well  we  should  know 


226  My  Dear  Wells 

it  beforehand.  How  much  fighting  do  you  think 
there  is  likely  to  be?  I  am  not  disposed  to  do  very 
much  myself.  For  let  me  tell  you,  this  Collectivist 
Paradise  of  yours,  as  you  design  it,  is  going  to  be  a 
terribly  dull  place  to  live  in.  I  shouldn't  wonder 
if  its  inhabitants  get  up  an  occasional  fight  amongst 
themselves  just  to  relieve  its  deadly  monotonous 
mechanical  routine.  In  any  case  you  promise  us 
some  fighting.  We  are  not  going  to  have  "freedom 
from  error  and  passion"  without  a  bloody  pre- 
liminary scuffle  to  make  sure  we  get  it. 

What  we  are  anxious  to  know,  my  dear  Wells,  is 
this: — how  much  fighting  we  have  got  to  make  up 
our  minds  for.  In  order  to  set  up  this  Collectivist 
Internationalist  State  of  yours?  You  assure  us  in 
your  vasty  vague  way  that  your  State  is  to  be 
"capable  of  sane  adjustments  against  war."  Seeing 
that  war  earthquakes  are  fearfully  destructive,  you 
are  going  to  set  up  this  seismological  apparatus  to 
prevent  them.  But  you  tell  us  that  we  shall  have  to 
endure  some  amount  of  earthquaking  as  the  neces- 
sary consequences  of  fixing  up  your  apparatus.  How 
much?  How  much  blood  Is  to  be  shed  to  set  up  this 
Internationalist  State?  You  are  not  prepared  to 
say.  It  is  not  your  business  to  weigh,  and  search, 
and  consider,  and  trace  consequences.  It  is  your 
business  to  promulgate  theories,  to  blow  rosy  bub- 
bles filled  with  wordy  inanities,  and  set  them  floating 


Arguing  With  a  Turnip         227 

to  the  applause  and  admiration  of  people  who  cannot 
think  for  themselves. 

Let  me  tilt  your  mind  towards  the  perception  of 
this  stark  gaunt  fact — there  is  no  possibility  of  set- 
ting up  any  form  of  Internationalist  Government  on 
this  earth  until  mankind  have  sacrificed  themselves 
and  wasted  themselves  wholesale  in  at  least  two 
world  wars,  more  widely  spread,  more  cruel,  more 
bloody,  and  more  destructive  than  the  world  war  we 
have  just  finished.  The  yellow  races  and  the  negro 
races  will  be  protagonists  in  these  future  world 
wars.  If  you  wish  to  detect  the  germination  of 
future  wars,  follow  closely  the  proceedings  of  the 
JLeague  of  Nations,  a  debating  society  which  has 
_been  established^at  Geneva  ior  the  purpose  of  induc; 
ing_everyjiationjn_the  world  to  meddle  in  the  affairs 
of  every  other^nation.  I  do  not  say  that  world  forces 
which  we  cannot  control,  are  not  driving  us  towards 
International  catastrophes  of  unimaginable  magni- 
tude and  duration.  But  I  do  say,  with  the  sternest 
conviction,  that  when  you  counsel  the  destruction  of 
the  present  social  order,  and  advocate  International 
Government  as  a  means  of  avoiding  war,  you  are 
making  yourself  the  laughing-stock  of  the  Eternal. 

It  is  plain  from  this  reply  of  yours  to  Mr. 
Churchill  that  you  have  never  troubled  to  form  any 
definite  plan,  even  on  paper,  of  the  series  of  stu- 
pendous operations  by  which  your  new  social  order 


228  My  Dear  Wells 

is  to  be  set  up,  and  by  which  some  form  of  Col- 
lectivist  and  Internationahst  government  is  to  be 
established  somewhere.  Clearly  the  destinies  of 
millions  of  mankind  would  be  involved,  and  vast 
movements  of  various  peoples  and  races  would  have 
to  be  directed  and  coordinated.  You  assume  their 
perfect  amity  of  cooperation,  and  obedience  to  per- 
fectly wise,  honest,  and  unselfish  leaders.  You 
recognize,  my  dear  Wells,  don't  you,  that  whether 
or  not  these  extended  and  complicated  operations 
are  successful  in  establishing  your  International 
Collectivist  State,  they  will  at  least  be  successful 
in  breaking  up  the  British  Empire.  You  do  recog- 
nize that,  don't  you?  It  is  what  you  desire,  and 
what  you  are  working  for.  I  propose  to  show 
you,  my  dear  Wells,  that  while  the  breakup  of  the 
British  Empire  is  possible,  and  even  probable  if 
a  sufficient  number  of  its  citizens  embrace  your 
theories, — while  this  is  possible,  the  establishment 
of  International  government  is  impossible  within 
any  period  of  time  that  it  is  worth  while  for  us 
to  attempt  to  measure. 

I  will  now  lay  down  a  series  of  propositions,  state- 
ments, and  conclusions  for  your  guidance,  and  for 
the  guidance  of  those  whom  you  are  misguiding  on 
these  great  matters.  I  shall  not  in  this  place  defend 
any  of  them  by  lengthened  arguments  and  explana- 
tions, as  I  have  already  examined  them  and  minutely 


Arguing  With  a  Turnip         229 

reasoned  upon  every  one  of  them  in  my  "Patriotism 
and  Popular  Education" — see  the  fifth  chapter, 
called  "Patriotism  and  Internationalism."  If  I  now 
advance  any  proposition  that  you  wish  to  challenge 
or  deny,  please  read  that  chapter  carefully,  and  you 
will  find  yourself  answered,  not  by  vasty  vague 
abstract  phrases,  but  by  a  chain  of  clear  connected 
arguments.  It  is  open  to  you  to  refute  any  of  my 
arguments,  or  to  dispute  any  of  my  conclusions,  and 
to  prove  that  I  am  wrong.  It  will  not  be  open  to  you 
after  this  to  spread  class  hatred  and  disunion,  and 
to  vent  mischievous  unworkable  theories  that  tend 
to  the  disintegration  of  the  British  Empire,  and  to 
the  annihilation  of  all  social  order. 

•  •  •  •  • 

There  are  on  the  face  of  the  earth  some  fifty 
more  or  less  distinct  nations,  communities  and  tribes, 
living  under  more  or  less  distinct  forms  of  govern- 
ment. These  fifty  nations  have  more  or  less  dis- 
tinct and  opposing  separate  national  interests.  Every 
one  of  them  is  always  more  or  less  in  collision,  or  in 
competition  with  some  of  the  others  for  the  posses- 
sion of  fertile  territory,  commercial  gain,  dominion 
over  inferior  races,  or  for  some  other  material  or 
fancied  advantages,  or  for  the  land  or  sea  power 
which  will  put  them  in  a  position  of  superiority  to 
their  neighbours  in  the  constant  struggle  for  the 
possession  of  these  advantages. 


230  My  Dear  Wells 

These  fifty  nations  are  composed  of  men  of  the 
widest  differences  and  antagonisms  of  all  sorts — in 
race,  in  colour,  in  intellectual  capacity,  in  bodily 
capacity,  in  religion,  in  habits,  in  morals,  in  adapt- 
ability to  opposite  climatic  conditions,  in  adaptability 
to  varying  forms  of  civilization,  in  adaptability  to 
citizenship  in  any  prescribed  and  enforced  form  of 
civilized  government.  This  opposition  of  national 
interests  is  perpetual  and  universal.  You  are  not 
dealing  with  a  homogeneous  herd  of  men.  You 
cannot  gather  together  in  one  flock  this  great  human 
zoo  and  pipe  them  into  your  International  sheep-fold 
by  playing  to  them  on  your  Pan's  pipes  a  selection 
of  vasty  vague  phrases  about  a  "coming  supremacy 
of  order  and  justice."  The  more  you  try  to  drive 
them  all  into  your  International  sheep-fold,  the 
nearer  you  bring  them  all  to  its  gates,  the  more 
opportunities  you  will  give  them  of  tearing  each 
other  into  pieces.  Look  around,  my  dear  Wells. 
Open  your  eyes,  pop  !  Awake,  awake  to  facts ! 
See  Internationalism  actually  in  operation,  every- 
where the  agent  of  disunion,  disorder,  and  inter- 
necine strife,  everywhere  spreading  the  anarchy  that 
ends  in  the  most  brutal  militarism.  Watch  the  devel- 
opments of  Internationalism  in  Russia.  If  you  would 
spare  mankind  the  curse  of  ceaseless  warfare,  I 
beseech  you  to  allow  the  diverse  human  herds  to 
remain  in  the  families  and  groups  that  they  natu- 
rally tend  to  form,  under  the  diverse  governments 


Arguing  With  a  Turnip        231 

that  the  most  capable  and  strongest  amongst  them 
can  establish  over  them. 

•  •  •  •  • 

'Tenshun  now,  my  dear  Wells,  while  I  give  you  in 
four  words  the  master  key  to  the  present  world 
situation. 

Patriotism  is  an  instinct. 

Patriotism  cannot  strictly  be  called  a  virtue,  since 
a  virtue  is  a  habit  that  is  obviously  advisable  for  men 
to  practise  for  their  own  individual  good  and  inter- 
est, or  for  the  good  and  interest  of  others.  A 
healthy  man  has  considerable  liberty  of  choice 
whether  or  not  he  practises  a  certain  virtue.  It  is 
largely  an  affair  of  his  reason,  his  discretion,  his  will. 
But  an  instinct  is  a  driving  force  within  him  which 
often  compels  his  obedience  against  his  reason, 
against  his  knowledge,  against  his  will,  and  against 
his  own  good  and  interest. 

Still  less  is  Patriotism  a  political  opinion,  some- 
thing which  can  be  determined  by  voting.  This  is 
the  common  error.  In  England  for  the  generation 
before  the  war.  Patriotism  was  esteemed  to  be  a 
vicious  political  opinion  which  led  the  nations  into 
war,  and  was  therefore  to  be  voted  down.  When 
the  war  came.  Patriotism  proved  itself  to  be  an 
irresistible  instinct,  and  swept  the  country. 

Patriotism  is  the  instinct  of  collective  self-preser- 
vation in  a  nation.  Nations  that  are  without  it, 
or  are  poorly  endowed  with  it,  succumb  to  their 


232  My  Dear  Wells 

rivals  and  perish.  It  is  a  universal  instinct.  I  shall 
presently  show  you,  my  dear  Wells,  that  you,  your- 
self, are  richly  endowed  with  a  spurious  kind  of 
Patriotism. 

Patriotism  is  incipient  in  every  tribe,  in  every 
clan,  in  every  community,  in  every  family.  It 
springs  up  vigorously  as  soon  as  any  class  or  race 
of  men  find  that  they  have  common  interests  to 
defend.  The  brand  new  republic  of  Panama  is 
already  ebullient  with  Patriotism,  and  so  are  the 
new  nations  of  Europe. 

The  primary  instincts  are  so  necessary  to  the  indi- 
vidual, or  to  the  family,  or  to  the  race  that  Nature 
gives  them  all  in  excess.  In  this  excess  they  are  often 
unreasonable,  unreasoning,  absurd,  unscrupulous, 
mischievous,  and  dangerous  to  their  possessors. 
Patriotism  has  these  defects  like  all  the  other  pri- 
mary instincts.  It  has  other  defects  of  its  own.  It 
is  often  boastful  and  blatant,  over-reaching,  and 
sometimes  runs  to  a  destructive  megalomania,  as 
with  the  Germans.  Seeing  that  Patriotism  often 
exhibits  these  bad  qualities,  many  worthy  people  seek 
to  abolish  it,  not  perceiving  that  it  is  one  of  the 
primary  instincts  and  cannot  be  abolished. 

Some  time  ago  I  was  betrayed  into  a  heated  argu- 
ment upon  the  nature  of  Patriotism  with  a  Pacifist, 
a  very  violent  quarrelsome  Pacifist.  He  was  a  small 
aggressive  loud-voiced  person,  with  a  round  head 
which  contained  an  incessant  tongue  that  poured  out 


Arguing  With  a  Turnip         233 

much  vasty  vagueness.  He  trumpeted  violent  denun- 
ciations of  Patriotism,  holding  it  accountable  for  all 
of  the  evils  that  have  recently  befallen  the  world, 
and  demanding  its  instant  abolition  that  we  might 
settle  down  to  universal  perpetual  peace.  I  pointed 
out  that  Patriotism  is  a  universal  primary  instinct; 
that  though  it  often  manifests  itself  in  undesirable 
and  mischievous  ways,  yet  being  an  instinct,  it  is 
impossible  to  root  it  out  of  human  nature.  If  we 
could  utterly  destroy  Patriotism  tonight,  it  would 
spring  up  afresh  all  the  world  over  tomorrow,  would 
draw  into  unity  any  group  of  men  that  had  racial 
affinities  and  common  interests  to  defend,  and  after 
much  bloodshed,  would  mould  them  into  a  nation. 

I  argued  on  these  lines,  giving  him  solid  undeni- 
able facts  and  instances,  and  appealing  to  his  reason- 
ing faculties.  He  did  not  reply  to  me  with  argu- 
ment, any  more  than  you  do,  my  dear  Wells.  He 
called  me  a  liar,  and  other  abusive  names — a  most 
pugnacious  Pacifist,  a  most  bellicose  Pacifist.  He 
thumped  the  table  with  his  fist,  and  waggled  and 
rolled  his  round  head,  and  blazed  out  in  fresh  exe- 
crations of  Patriotism.  I  grieve  to  say  that  I  also 
got  excited  and  angry,  as  I  produced  more  facts, 
more  evidence,  more  arguments.  I  showed  him 
Patriotism  as  a  living  universal  force,  working  be- 
hind all  the  great  world  movements,  and  directing 
them.  He  merely  vociferated — the  round  head 
waggled   and  shook   with   obstinate   denial   of   fact 


234  My  ^^^^  Wells 

and  argument — I  paused  for  a  moment  and  looked 
at  that  round  waggling  head — by  a  sudden  illumina- 
tion I  became  aware  that  it  was  not  a  head  at  all, 
but  a  turnip,  a  veritable  turnip  placed  on  the  top  of 
his  neck  and  shoulders. 

I  do  not  say  that  it  was  an  ordinary  vegetable 
turnip.  It  was  connected  by  ligatures  with  his 
digestive  and  respiratory  organs,  and  doubtless  cer- 
tain processes  of  a  more  or  less  cogitative  nature 
went  on  inside  it.  But  for  all  purposes  of  ratiocina- 
tion, so  far  as  regards  all  power  of  comprehension  of 
sovereign  facts,  and  their  coordination  with  eternal 
laws  and  principles,  it  was  a  turnip.  After  a  shock 
of  surprise  which  took  away  my  breath,  I  rushed  out 
of  the  room.  I  had  wasted  a  good  hour  arguing 
with  a  turnip.    But  it  looked  very  much  like  a  head. 

Speaking  of  this  experience  with  one  of  our  lead- 
ing surgeons,  he  told  me  in  confidence  that  autopsies 
reveal  to  them  that  large  numbers  of  our  population 
possess  these  quasi-heads.  Medical  men  jealously 
guard  this  fact  as  a  professional  secret,  not  wishing 
to  wound  the  self-esteem  of  their  patients.  The  man 
who  has  a  human  turnip  growing  on  the  top  of  his 
shoulders,  never  suspects  that  it  isn't  a  real  head. 
Indeed  the  outer  semblance  is  perfect.  The  incident 
I  have  related  made  so  powerful  an  impression  upon 
me,  that  whenever  I  happen  to  see  a  bunch  of  turnips 
outside  a  vegetable  shop,  I  hurry  away  for  fear  that 
they  may  begin  to  denounce  Patriotism,  and  that  I 


Arguing  With  a  Turnip         235 

may  become  involved  in  an  argument  with  them. 
How  many  precious  hours  we  waste  arguing  with 
turnips ! 

No  doubt,  my  dear  Wells,  Patriotism  has  its 
unwise  manifestations  and  excesses  which  have  often 
worked  much  mischief  in  the  world.  So  has  the 
sexual  instinct.  War  itself  has  not  wrought  more 
ravages,  wrecked  more  homes,  destroyed  more  lives. 
But  very  few  of  us  propose  to  abolish  the  sexual 
instinct  on  that  account.  My  Aunt  Julia  indeed  is 
so  obsessed  with  the  contemplation  of  the  wholesale 
evils  attendant  upon  its  excesses  and  irregularities, 
that  she  is  forming  a  League  for  its  total  suppression. 
By  the  way,  my  dear  Wells,  my  Aunt  Julia  is  a  great 
admirer  of  yours.  She  reads  everything  you  write, 
and  daily  spreads  your  fame  broadcast  among  her 
large  circles  of  acquaintances. 

If  then  we  recognize  that  Patriotism  is  not  a 
political  opinion,  but  is  a  permanent  universal 
instinct,  we  get  a  clue  to  the  cause  of  the  present 
confusions  and  disorders  of  the  world,  and  also  a 
clue  to  the  only  way  that  will  lead  the  nations  out  of 
chaos,  and  enable  them  to  settle  down  into  something 
approaching  peace  and  prosperity.  It  is  useless  to 
try  to  root  out  a  universal  instinct.  As  fast  as  we 
stamp  it  down,  it  springs  up  again.  Instead  of  try- 
ing to  suppress  it,  we  must  seek  to  turn  it  into  its 
legitimate  channels,  and  keep  it  from  overflowing 
its  lawful  bounds.    I  would  have  you  notice,  my  dear 


236  My  Dear  Wells 

Wells,  that  as  your  Collectivist  theories  are  met  and 
defeated  by  the  permanent  instinct  of  individual  self- 
preservation,  so  your  International  theories  are  met 
and  defeated  by  the  permanent  instinct  of  national 
self-preservation,  that  is,  by  Patriotism. 

.  •  •  • 

'Tenshun  once  more.     POP  I 

Pacifism  and  Internationalism  are  perverted  forms 
of  the  universal  instinct  of  Patriotism.  The  Pacifist 
seeing  the  evils  and  miseries  and  horrors  of  war, 
votes  himself  into  citizenship  of  a  country  where 
war  is  impossible.  He  naturalizes  himself  in  that 
country;  feels  the  same  affection  for  it  that  the  ordi- 
nary citizen  feels  for  his  own  country;  distorts  his 
whole  mental  vision  in  favour  of  his  Imaginary  be- 
loved land;  works  for  it,  is  ready  to  fight  and  die 
for  it.  There  is  no  such  determined  Patriot  as  your 
convinced  Pacifist.  He  automatically  becomes  the 
enemy  of  his  own  country,  which  in  his  view  is 
always  governed  by  wicked  men  whose  "vision  is 
smeared  with  blood."  He  therefore  brims  over 
with  Patriotism  for  every  country  but  his  own.  He 
is  a  multiple,  universal  Patriot. 

Internationalism  Is  another  perverted  form  of 
Patriotism.  The  Internationalist,  seeing  that  his 
own  country  and  every  country  in  the  world  is  Imper- 
fectly governed  by  men  who  make  mistakes,  who  are 
short-sighted  and  faulty  In  many  ways, — seeing  this 
deplorable    state    of    affairs,    the    Internationalist 


Arguing  With  a  Turnip         237 

vilifies  and  abjures  his  native  land,  and  enrolls  him- 
self as  a  citizen  of  a  world  state  where  there  Is  a 
"supremacy  of  justice  and  order,"  where  men  are 
free  from  "error  and  passion,"  where  there  are 
"sane  adjustments"  against  earthquakes,  and  where 
omelettes  grow  on  every  tree. 

The  Internationalist  throbs  with  a  passionate 
Patriotism  for  this  delightful  world  state.  He  dis- 
torts or  ignores  or  denies  all  facts  that  lie  in  the  way 
of  its  realization.  Thougji  his  chief  accusation 
against  our  present  civilization  is  that  It  leads  to 
war,  yet  he  welcomes  and  Invokes  an  Incalculable 
amount  of  bloodshed  and  fighting  for  an  Internation- 
alist State.  Seeing  that  his  own  government  is  one 
of  the  obstacles  to  Its  establishment,  he  inflames  him- 
self against  his  native  land,  brings  false  charges 
against  its  rulers,  seeks  to  undermine  the  social  order 
under  which  he  lives,  and  which  alone  protects  him 
from  anarchy. 

You,  my  dear  Wells,  offer  us  a  conspicuous  exam- 
ple of  this  perverted  Patriotism.  Read  again  your 
papers  on  Russia.  See  how  eager  you  are  to  con- 
done the  worst  crimes  of  Bolshevism  because  it  is 
an  attempt  at  International  Government.  Your 
heart  warms  towards  Lenin,  though  you  say  he  is  a 
rotten  little  Incessant  Intriguer  who  ought  to  be 
killed  by  some  moral  sanitary  authority.  Never 
mind  that.  He  is  a  brother  Patriot  in  your  Inter- 
national State.     Again,  all  through  the  same  papers 


238  My  Dear  Wells 

you  show  a  spirit  of  rancid  hostility  to  the  British 
Empire.  You  bring  constant  accusations  and  insinu- 
ations against  its  rulers.  While  you  laud  and  admire 
the  Bolshevist  leaders,  and  sympathize  and  frater- 
nize with  them,  you  have  nothing  but  disparagement 
and  blame  for  English  statesmen.  All  this,  my  dear 
Wells,  is  Patriotism  gone  astray,  the  perversion  of 
the  wholesome  instinct  which  stirs  the  normal  man 
to  love  his  country;  to  love  its  very  soil  as  the  clay 
which  has  moulded  him  and  his  fathers  and  the 
mighty  men  who  have  begotten  their  breed  within  its 
borders,  and  have  made  it  a  home  for  him  and  his 
children;  stirs  him  to  find  excuses  for  his  country's 
faults  as  he  would  find  excuses  for  the  faults  of  his 
mother;  to  be  jealous  for  its  honour  and  dignity 
as  for  the  honour  and  dignity  of  her  that  bore  him; 
stirs  him  to  take  a  pride  in  his  country's  achievements 
because  they  have  been  wrought  by  his  own  blood 
and  kin;  stirs  him  to  maintain  and  fortify  the  inheri- 
tance that  has  been  bequeathed  to  him,  and  to  strive 
that  it  shall  not  be  impoverished  and  diminished  and 
taken  away  from  his  children. 

Thus  works  the  wholesome  instinct  of  Patriotism 
in  the  normal  man,  and  by  its  operation,  nations  are 
preserved  from  internal  disruption,  and  from  defeat 
and  destruction  at  the  hands  of  their  enemies. 
Internationalism  is  inverted  and  perverted  Patriot- 
ism. You,  my  dear  Wells,  have  the  instinct  of 
Patriotism  fully  developed,  but  it  works  the  wrong 


Arguing  With  a  Turnip         239 

way,  towards  the  insecurity  and  disintegration  of 
your  own  country.  Reverse  the  engines  of  your 
mind,  and  become  a  loyal  British  citizen.  Compared 
with  Internationalist  Russia,  England  isn't  such  a 
very  bad  country  to  live  in.  You  don't  feel  inclined 
to  hum  a  bar  or  two  of  the  National  Anthem,  I 
suppose? 


The  first  six  notes  of  "God  Save  the  King." 

International  Patriots  have  an  enormous  advan- 
tage over  National  Patriots.  A  National  Patriot 
can  offer  to  his  discontented  fellow  citizens  no  better 
land  to  live  in  than  their  own  country  where,  as  is 
obvious  to  all  of  them,  they  are  not  receiving  their 
deserts.  But  an  International  Patriot  can  offer  to 
every  man  who  is  dissatisfied  with  his  present  con- 
dition, a  title  of  citizenship  in  a  land  where  every- 
body gets  his  deserts,  which  is  perfectly  governed 
and  administered  by  perfectly  wise,  honest,  unselfish 
comrades  who  are  free  from  "error  and  passion" — 
a  land  where  there  is  a  perpetual  "supremacy  of 
order  and  justice,"  and  where  the  most  delicious 
succulent  omelettes  grow  on  every  tree  for  everybody 
to  pluck.  Now  you  know,  my  dear  Wells,  why  these 
International  Paradises  are  so  attractive,  and  why 
their  promoters  are  so  popular. 


240  My  Dear  Wells 

'Tenshun  once  morel  POP  1  I  have  one  more 
unpalatable  dose  of  plain  indisputable  truth  which  I 
must  invite  you  to  swallow.  If  you  reject  it,  none 
the  less  will  it  be  the  truth. 

International  good  will  and  amity  and  the  benefits 
to  all  nations  which  are  to  be  obtained  from  general 
kindly  International  intercourse,  can  only  flow 
through  the  channels  cut  by  National  Patriotism. 
The*  desperate  need  of  the  world  today  is  that  a 
strong  enduring  national  government  should  be  set 
up  and  confirmed  in  each  of  the  capital  cities  of* the 
respective  countries.  Facilities  for  external  trade, 
mutual  concessions  and  civilities,  offers  and  offices 
of  friendship,  a  clearly  defined  foreign  policy,  inter- 
national arrangements  of  all  kinds,  must  be  con- 
ducted in  each  country  by  the  agency  of*  a  national 
government. 

If  that  government  is  not  firmly  established,  if  it 
does  not  speak  with  the  authority  of  the  nation,  if  it 
is  not  supported  by  the  general  voice  of  all  its  citi- 
zens, no  international  arrangements  that  it  enters 
into  can  be  valid  and  binding,  no  international  good 
understanding  can  be  obtained.  Now  a  government 
is  secure  and  is  favourably  placed  for  entering  into 
international  negotiations  and  thereby  establishing 
international  good  will  and  amity,  in  proportion  as 
a  wise  and  resolute  Patriotism  of  its  people  rallies 
them  to  support  it.  So  much  sober  stedfast 
Patriotism  in  a  nation,  so  much  power  it  gives  to  its 


Arguing  With  a  Turnip         241 

government  to  enter  into  stable  International  rela- 
tions that  make  for  peace  and  good  will  on  earth. 

Without  this  general  Patriotism  behind  it,  the 
foreign  policy  of  any  government  must  helplessly 
flounder  towards  international  confusion  and  dis- 
order. When,  my  dear  Wells,  you  go  to  Russia 
and  hobnob  with  an  enemy  of  your  country  who  is 
sending  money  to  corrupt  its  navy, — when  you  ask 
support  for  his  crazy  tyrannical  government  and 
defame  your  own,  you  are  not  merely  adding  to  the 
insecurities  and  dangers  that  beset  your  own  country, 
you  are  also  stirring  up  International  strife.  It  is 
Internationalism,  as  you  will  find,  that  leads  to  "war 
and  war  and  more  war."  It  is  Internationalism  in 
Russia  that  is  today  the  chief  hinderer  and  disturber 
of  the  world's  peace.  It  is  Internationalism  that  is 
the  great  enemy  of  international  amity  and  good  will 
amongst  the  nations.  Firmly  established  govern- 
ments in  each  capital  of  the  world,  that  is,  govern- 
ments supported  by  the  Patriotism  of  their  respec- 
tive peoples,  are  the  only  agents  that  can  promote 
and  diffuse  peaceable  and  friendly  and  brotherly 
international  intercourse  all  the  world  over. 

Retire  into  your  chamber  and  ponder  these 
matters. 

Patriotically  and  therefore  Internationally  yours, 

Henry  Arthur  Jones. 
March  11,  1921. 


LETTER  SEVENTEEN. 
GATHERING  UP  THE  FRAGMENTS. 

My  Dear  Wells, — 

In  Aristopia  the  constant  misuse  of  abstract  words 
and  phrases  was  found  to  work  such  evil  in  the  social 
and  political  economy  of  the  nation  that  it  became 
necessary  to  enact  stringent  legislation  to  prevent  it. 
The  Court  for  Assessing  the  Value  of  Abstract 
Words  and  Phrases  is  the  largest  and  busiest  division 
of  the  Aristopian  Palace  of  Justice.  Every  man  who 
uses  an  abstract  word  or  phrase  without  being  able 
to  define  the  exact  sense  in  which  he  uses  it,  and  to 
justify  its  use  in  that  sense,  is  instantly  taken  before 
the  Court,  and  after  a  fair  hearing,  is  heavily  fined 
according  to  the  measure  of  his  offence.  The  worst 
delinquents,  and  all  coiners  of  mischievous  abstract 
phrases  and  terms,  are  sent  to  prison  without  the 
option  of  a  fine. 

My  old  friend  Professor  Sophologos,  who  is 
Chief  Corrector  of  wrong  opinions  in  the  National 
University  of  Aristopia,  told  me  the  other  day  that 
the  very  large  amount  of  personal  and  civic  liberty 
which  he  and  his  fellow  citizens  enjoy,  can  be  traced 
to  the  fact  that  for  two  generations  past  no  Aris- 

242 


Gathering  Up  the  Fragments      243 

topian  has  been  allowed  to  use  the  word  "Liberty" 
without  being  called  upon  to  explain  definitely  and 
concretely  what  he  means  by  it. 

I  was  sitting  down  to  lunch  when  Sophologos 
called,  and  I  asked  him  to  join  me.  I  had  beside 
my  plate  a  copy  of  your  reply  to  Mr.  Winston 
Churchill  on  Bolshevism.  Beino;  unable  to  obtain 
a  cocktail  before  my  meals  in  America,  I  use  your 
article  as  an  aperitif.  I  find  that  a  few  hearty 
chuckles  over  its  absurdities  greatly  assist  my  diges- 
tion. After  lunch,  I  handed  your  article  to  Sopholo- 
gos to  read,  and  lighted  a  cigarette  while  I  watched 
its  effect  upon  him.  As  he  advanced  into  its 
fallacies  and  nebulosities,  and  got  deeper  and 
deeper  into  its  vasty  vagueness,  his  face  dark- 
ened into  sterner  and  yet  sterner  frowns.  From 
my  intimate  acquaintance  with  what  he  was  read- 
ing, I  could  give  a  good  guess  as  to  which  of 
your  fallacies  or  inconsistencies  was  provoking 
his  displeasure.  By  the  time  Sophologos  had 
finished  reading  it,  his  face  was  a  mask  of  grave 
and  scornful  disapproval.  He  laid  it  upon  the  table, 
and  for  some  seconds  sat  silently  regarding  its  head- 
line, "The  Anti-Bolshevik  Mind."  At  length  he 
uttered  this  brief  comment : — "If  any  Aristopian  had 
written  that  paper,  he  would  have  been  sent  to  prison 
for  the  remainder  of  his  life." 

I  have  now  perhaps  made  sufficient  tests  of  the 
quality  of  your  thinking  in  this  reply  of  yours  to 


244  My  Dear  Wells 

Mr.  Churchill.  It  has  proved  to  be  a  valuable 
Wellsometer.  There  are  In  Its  537  lines  many  more 
sentences  and  phrases  and  passages  which  tempt- 
ingly offer  themselves  to  be  unstripped  and  operated 
upon.  But  I  must  refrain.  Sufficient  unto  the  day  is 
the  amount  of  vasty  vagueness  that  we  have  already 
dissected. 

In  the  comparative  absence  of  high  comedy  from 
our  English  stage,  I  find  a  satisfactory  substitute  In 
contemplating  the  magisterial  attitude  you  adopt 
towards  poor  Mr.  Churchill,  and  the  lofty  tone  of 
the  reproofs  you  administer  to  him.  In  your 
majestic  cocksure  philosophic  dignity  of  bearing 
towards  him,  you  show  yourself  to  be  sublime — or 
at  least,  not  more  than  one  step  removed  from  it. 

Nothing  in  the  whole  paper  pleases  me  more  than 
your  portentous  declaration,  "Mr.  Churchill  has  an 
undisciplined  mind."  You  say  so.  You  talk,  my 
dear  Wells  !  You  talk !  You  have  told  me  with  the 
same  severity  of  Indiscrimination  that  I  also  have  "a 
hasty  ill-trained  mind."  You  say  so.  Everybody 
who  opposes  you  has  an  undisciplined  or  a  hasty  ill- 
trained  mind.  Do  you  mind  my  pointing  out  to  you 
that  you  do  not  settle  a  question  that  is  In  dispute 
by  telling  your  opponent  that  he  has  an  "undisci- 
plined" or  "a  hasty,  ill-trained"  mind?  That  may 
seem  to  you  a  convenient  way  of  escaping  from  argu- 
ment, and  of  course  If  you  find  yourself  floored,  you 
may  as  well  say  that  as  anything  else.    Nevertheless 


Gathering  Up  the  Fragments     245 

it  is  a  bad  habit,  my  dear  Wells,  akin  to  your  other 
bad  habits  of  flatly  contradicting  yourself,  and  of 
making  the  most  monstrous  assumptions  and  asser- 
tions without  any  foundation  for  them.  Try  to  cure 
yourself  of  all  these  bad  habits.  I  should  like  to  feel 
that  in  our  next  controversy,  you  will  arouse  me  to 
some  energy  of  response,  and  force  me  to  a  good 
stiff  tussle  with  whatever  reasoning  powers  you  may 
discover  yourself  to  possess. 

We  will  now  put  your  reply  to  Mr.  Churchill — 
The  Anti-Bolshevik  Mind — upon  a  handy  shelf, 
keeping  it  within  reach  for  ready  reference  as  we 
may  find  future  need  to  explore  it  more  thoroughly. 
We  will  again  briefly  summarize  it  as  containing: 

17  lines  of  doubtful  argument  upon  the  matters   in 

dispute. 

165  lines  of  detraction   and   abuse  of  Mr.  Churchill. 

149  Hnes  of  illogical  advancement  of  your  own  theories. 

206  lines  of  unclassifiable  generalities  and  irrelevancies. 


537  lines— TOTAL. 

Throughout  my  examination  of  this  truly 
"amazing"  paper  of  yours,  I  have  not  been 
concerned  to  defend  Mr.  Churchill.  So  far  as 
you  have  attacked  his  personal  character,  it  is  his 
own  affair.  So  far  as  you  have  attacked  his  political 
opinions,  motives,  aims  and  actions,  I  have  only  to 
inquire  how  he  answers  the  one  supreme  question 
before  our  nation  today,  "Shall  we  put  into  opera- 


246  My  Dear  Wells 

tlon  unworkable  International  theories  and  break 
up  the  British  Empire,  bringing  upon  ourselves 
the  misery,  horror  and  chaos  that  must  inevitably 
follow  any  attempt  to  establish  an  International 
government;  or  on  the  other  hand,  shall  we  gather 
ourselves  in  a  sober  resolute  Patriotism  to  consoli- 
date the  British  Empire,  forgetting  for  the  time  our 
internal  dissensions  and  class  hatreds,  and  bending 
all  our  efforts  to  establish  ourselves  in  unity  and 
security,  that  our  national  government  may  be  an 
effective  instrument  for  promoting  International 
good  understanding  and  good  will  among  the  peo- 
ples of  the  earth?" 

With  regard  to  that  question,  if  Mr.  Churchill 
were  ten  times  the  bold  bad  man  you  make  him  out 
to  be,  I  should  still  think  it  most  fortunate  that  he, 
and  not  yourself,  has  a  share  in  guiding  our  national 
affairs. 

Parenthetically,  I  read  in  this  morning's  papers 
that  the  reprehensible  "Anti-Bolshevik  mind"  is 
developing  very  rapidly  over  all  Russia,  and  making 
furious  manifestations  of  its  vicious  activity.  Petro- 
grad  is  reported  to  be  in  flames,  and  there  are  whole- 
sale massacres  on  both  sides.  You  will  remember, 
my  dear  Wells,  that  you  hold  tv/o  flatly  contradic- 
tory opinions  about  Bolshevism.  You  tell  us  that 
it  is  a  formidable  force  which  will  overwhelm  our 
world  civilization  unless  we  subsidize  it  and  keep  it 
in  power.    You  also  tell  us  that  it  is  a  small  negllgi- 


Gathering  Up  the  Fragments     247 

ble  movement  conducted  by  rather  amiable  persons 
— a  harmless  temporary  little  outbreak  which  will 
die  out  if  only  we  don't  make  a  fuss  about  it.  You 
might  tell  us  which  of  these  two  contradictory 
opinions  you  happen  to  be  holding  for  the  moment, 
in  view  of  the  present  Russian  situation. 

You  also  told  us  that  the  Bolshevist  government 
was  firmly  established  and  was  likely  to  endure. 
With  equal  emphasis,  you  told  us  that  it  was  by  no 
means  firmly  established  and  that  it  behoved  us  to 
make  haste  and  prop  it  up.  The  astounding  capacity 
of  your  giant  mind  that  has  room  in  it  for  all  these 
opinions  at  the  same  time  I 

Either  Bolshevist  government  will  endure  or  it 
will  not  endure.  As  you  have  prophesied  both 
things,  whatever  happens  I  shall  be  able  to  con- 
gratulate you  on  the  fulfilment  of  one  of  your 
prophecies.  Well,  well,  we  will  put  you  and  Mr. 
Churchill  on  the  shelf  for  the  time.  Which  of  your 
numerous  philosophical  writings  would  you  like  me 
to  examine  next? 

You  will  have  noticed  that  this  reply  of  yours  to 
Mr.  Churchill  not  only  gave  us  a  measure  of  your 
capacity  to  think  for  other  people,  but  it  also  gave 
us  an  unusually  good  opportunity  to  search  and 
scrutinize  your  cherished  theories.  Frankly,  my  dear 
Wells,  what  do  you  think  of  these  theories  of  yours, 
in  the  light  that  I  have  thrown  upon  them?  If  you 
will  pass  them  in  thoughtful  review,  calmly,  dispas- 


248  My  Dear  Wells 

sionately,  impartially  weighing  them  in  your  mind, 
I  am  sure  you  will  come  to  the  conclusion  that  essen- 
tially they  are  the  crude  theories  of  a  rebellious  shop 
assistant  with  a  confessed  tendency  to  arson,*  and 
a  fatuous  loquacity  about  the  supremacy  of  justice 
and  order;  with  a  woeful  continuity  of  hatred 
against  his  own  country,  and  a  woeful  discontinuity 
of  argument  to  justify  that  hatred;  active  for  the 
dissolution  and  destruction  of  our  present  social 
order;  impotent  and  bankrupt  for  the  construction 
of  any  social  order  whatever.  Isn't  that  the  way 
your  theories  now  strike  you?  Yes,  that's  just  the 
way  they  strike  me.  And  it  is  upon  the  basis  of 
"thinking"  such  as  I  have  analysed  that  we  are  asked 
to  break  down  the  present  social  order,  and  destroy 
the  British  Empire  I 

We  do  not  allow  unqualified  persons  to  treat  the 
human  body,  to  prescribe  for  its  ailments,  and  to 
operate  upon  its  vital  organs.  We  see  that  a  long 
practical  training  is  necessary  for  anyone  who 
charges  himself  with  the  care  of  the  health  of  his 
fellow  men.  If  we  find  a  man  practising  medicine 
without  any  knowledge  of  the  organs  of  the  human 
body  and  their  functions,  we  clap  him  into  jail. 

A  nation  is  a  social  organism,  self-contained  and 
individual;  dependent  upon  the  cooperation  of  all  its 
organs  and   functions  to  the   one  supreme  end  of 

*  "/  ivould  have  set  fire  to  that  place  {his  employer's  shop)  if  I 
had  not  been  convinced  it  ivas  overinsured." — H.  G.  Wells,  Russia 
in  the  Shadows. 


Gathering  Up  the  Fragments      249 

maintaining  and  continuing  its  existence.  Its  instinct 
of  self-preservation  is  called  Patriotism.  It  is  as 
delicately  balanced,  as  cunningly  coordinated  in  its 
thousand  intricacies  and  interdependencies  of  organ 
and  function,  as  the  human  body.  Yet  we  allow  any 
noisy  ignorant  quack  of  the  market  place  to  doctor 
this  infinitely  complex  social  organism,  and  to  oper- 
ate upon  its  vital  organs.  And  instead  of  clapping 
him  into  jail,  we  permit  him  to  continue  in  practice, 
and  sometimes  make  him  a  Right  Honourable. 

The  worst  quacks  of  all  are  those  who  are  now 
persuading  the  sickly  pain-wracked  nations  to  reju- 
venate themselves  into  one  compact  wholesome  social 
body  by  putting  themselves  into  the  International 
mince-meat  machine.  The  International  mince-meat 
machine  chops  and  grinds  them  to  pieces  one  after 
the  other  as  they  come  between  its  teeth.  Don't  take 
my  word  for  this.  See  the  process  in  actual  opera- 
tion. See  the  latest  news  from  Russia.  See  every 
nation  in  the  world  shaken  and  divided  against 
itself,  its  industrial  and  economical  activities  para- 
lyzed, hastening  towards  civil  war  and  anarchy  in 
exact  proportion  as  International  Theories  spread 
amongst  its  citizens.  "Not  without  blood"  as  you 
observe,  will  these  International  theories  of  yours 
be  carried  into  action.  What  a  glimmering  you  had 
there,  my  dear  Wells! 

The  multiplication  of  railways  and  aeroplanes  and 
swift  communications   bringing  the  various   inhab- 


2^0  My  Dear  Wells 

itants  of  the  earth  into  closer  intercourse  with  each 
other,  does  undoubtedly  offer  them  facilities  for 
better  understanding  and  for  good  will  and  amity 
according  as  certain  individuals  and  certain  nations 
amongst  them  have  common  palpable  interests,  or 
ties  of  blood.  But  no  development  of  the  means  of 
communication,  no  universal  railway,  or  telegraphic, 
or  aerial  service,  will  ever  turn  a  Chinaman  into  a 
white  man.  Nor  do  you  change  a  negro's  nature 
to  your  own  by  sitting  in  a  tramcar  beside  him  and 
talking  about  universal  brotherhood.  So  far  and  so 
long  as  men  have  radical  antipathies  and  opposing 
main  interests,  the  multiplication  of  swift  communi- 
cations gives  them  better  opportunities  for  fighting 
each  other,  as  well  as  better  opportunities  for  under- 
standing each  other. 

The  evil  result  of  all  this  quackery  is  that  we  are 
diverted  from  searching  into  the  true  causes  of  our 
social  and  international  maladies,  and  from  applying 
effective  remedies  to  such  of  them  as  are  remediable. 
When  the  quack  is  busy  pushing  his  panacea,  the  true 
physician  is  flouted  and  driven  from  the  door.  How 
long  it  was  before  we  learned  in  treating  the  human 
body  that  the  symptoms  are  not  the  disease  itself, 
but  a  warning  of  the  disease.  We  have  yet  to  learn 
the  same  hard  lesson  in  treating  the  social  organism. 

Clinically  yours, 

Henry  Arthur  Jones. 

March  i6,  1921. 


LETTER  EIGHTEEN. 

THE  WELLS  LEAGUE. 

My  Dear  Wells, — 

I  have  two  pieces  of  news  to  communicate  to  you. 
One  of  them  is  good  news,  and  will  give  you  just 
cause  for  delight  and  pride.  The  other  is  bad  news, 
which  will  give  you  some  qualms,  and  will  demand 
your  very  serious  consideration.  I  will  impart  the 
good  news  first. 

I  have  mentioned  that  my  Aunt  Julia  is  one  of 
your  most  constant  readers  and  most  devoted 
admirers.  I  don't  think  you  have  ever  met  her, 
but  I  daresay  she  has  written  you  copious  pages  of 
her  grateful  appreciation.  My  Aunt  Julia  possesses 
inexhaustible  energy;  physical,  vocal,  epistolary, 
domestic,  parochial,  social,  municipal,  general  advi- 
sory and  universally  superintendent.  She  has  sat 
upon  (in  both  senses)  more  committees,  and  organ- 
ized more  societies  than  any  man  or  woman  who 
ever  lived.  She  is  of  no  certain  age.  She  is  peren- 
nial. Her  figure  is  short  and  stout  and  has  no 
undulations.  It  was  obviously  made  to  fit  a  succes- 
sion of  intractable  suits  of  clothes  of  a  plain  stubborn 
material.     Her  features  are  square,  immobile,  and 

251 


252  My  Dear  Wells 

impervious  to  the  wear  and  tear  of  life.  She  gen- 
erally wears  a  velvet  toque,  shaped  like  a  pork  pie. 

I  am  a  man  of  few  prejudices  and  quirks,  yet  I 
must  own  that  I  have  an  unconquerable  aversion 
for  my  Aunt  Julia's  toques.  I  hate  them  almost  as 
much  as  I  hate  your  theories.  Now  there  is  good 
reason  why  I  should  hate  your  theories,  my  dear 
Wells,  as  I  hope  I  have  sufficiently  shown.  But 
there  is  no  reason  why  I  should  hate  my  Aunt  Julia's 
toques,  except  that  I  always  see  them  above  her  face. 

The  good  news  that  I  have  to  convey  to  you  is  that 
my  Aunt  Julia  has  formed  a  Wells  League  to  rally 
and  consolidate  your  admirers  and  gather  them  into 
a  cult.  The  sole  qualfication  for  belonging  to  the 
Wells  League  is  that  the  candidate  is  unable,  or  is 
indisposed,  to  think  for  himself,  and  is  desirous  of 
having  his  thinking  done  for  him.  There  is  no 
charge  for  membership.  There  is  no  liability  or 
tiresome  obligation  of  any  kind.  Everything  is 
optional,  except  the  simple  initiatory  rite  of  re- 
nouncing the  troublesome  business  of  thinking  for 
oneself. 

Aunt  Julia  is  giving  all  her  abundant  energy  to 
the  organization  of  the  League.  Members  are 
enrolling  in  almost  countless  numbers.  The  over- 
whelming response  of  both  sexes  and  all  classes  has 
astonished  me.  Yet  when  one  recalls  how  severe, 
how  painful,  how  fatiguing  is  the  effort  to  think  for 
oneself,  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  the  great 


The  Wells  League  253 

majority  of  our  fellow  citizens  should  hasten  to 
relieve  themselves  of  this  burdensome  and  vexatious 
exercise.  Aunt  Julia  has  made  the  wise  provision, 
that  although  members  of  the  Wells  League  relin- 
quish all  pretensions  to  think  for  themselves  upon 
abstract  and  complex  matters,  they  shall  not  be  de- 
barred from  talking  about  them.  Indeed  they  are  to 
be  encouraged  to  discuss  and  debate  them  on  all  occa- 
sions. She  judges  that  this  provision  will  ensure 
the  League  permanent  popularity  and  attractiveness. 
She  has  also  designed  a  neat  little  metal  badge  of 
membership.  It  is  oval  in  shape,  and  Its  motto — 
"Wells  thinks  for  me'' — runs  round  its  edge,  and 
encircles  a  portrait  of  yourself  in  the  appropriate 
attitude  of  "thinking  for  half  Europe."  Members 
will  be  expected  to  wear  the  badge  on  all  convenient 
occasions.  Aunt  Julia  pronounces  the  badge  to  be 
"very  pretty  and  artistic."  She  is  one  of  those  who 
use  the  word  "artistic." 

Aunt  Julia  perceives  that  this  great  Increase  In  the 
numbers  of  people  who  have  to  be  "thought  for," 
calls  for  a  corresponding  increase  In  the  number  of 
people  who  will  have  to  think  for  them.  She  there- 
fore contemplates  the  foundation  of  a  "Wells  Insti- 
tute of  Thinkers  for  Other  People,"  to  supplement 
the  activities  of  the  Wells  League,  and  to  provide 
an  enormous  amount  of  mental  pabulum  of  a  quality 
that  can  be  assimilated  without  the  least  exercise  of 
thought.     She   has   inspected   several   sites   for  the 


254  My  Dear  Wells 

erection  of  the  Wells  Institute,  and  has  fixed  upon 
one  that  adjoins  the  grounds  of  the  Idiot  Asylum  at 
Earlswood  in  Surrey.  She  hopes  that  you  will 
undertake  the  general  supervision  of  the  Wells 
Institute  of  Thinkers  for  Other  People,  and  train 
its  professors.  And  of  course  she  has  nominated 
you  as  President  of  both  the  League  and  the 
Institute. 

So  much  information  I  have  been  able  to  glean 
from  Aunt  Julia  about  her  plans  for  perpetuating 
your  system  of  social  and  political  philosophy. 
Wishing  to  give  you  a  pleasant  surprise,  she 
enjoined  me  to  secrecy,  but  I  could  not  refrain  from 
communicating  the  good  news  to  you. 

And  now,  my  dear  Wells,  I  must  prepare  you  for 
the  reception  of  a  piece  of  bad  news  that  I  fear  will 
sadly  mar,  and  perhaps  annul  all  the  pleasure  you 
have  felt  in  hearing  about  the  Wells  League  and 
the  Wells  Institute.  I  regret  to  tell  you  that  every 
day  Archibald  Spofforth  grows  more  and  more 
infuriated  against  you.  Sometimes  he  sits  in  his 
chair  muttering  threats  and  Imprecations.  At  other 
times  he  rages  up  and  down  the  room,  shaking  his 
fist,  and  using  most  unseemly  language  in  denuncia- 
tion of  your  theories.  From  the  first,  Spofforth  has 
placed  himself  towards  your  theories  in  the  wholly 
disrespectful  attitude  which  Subtle  assumes  towards 
Face  in  the  opening  lines  of  the  "Alchemist."     Lat- 


The  Wells  League  255 

terly  he  has  grown  more  violently  abusive,  and  seems 
unable  to  control  his  indignation  from  passing  into 
some  active  manifestation.  In  vain  do  I  urge  him 
to  have  patience  with  you,  to  copy  my  own  modera- 
tion and  gentle  persuasive  manner  towards  you.  I 
point  out  to  him  that  you  have  occasional  glimmer- 
ings, and  that  I  have  every  hope  of  ultimately 
making  a  good  British  citizen  of  you.  Spofforth 
remains  implacable  and  relentless.  At  times  I 
almost  hear  him  sharpening  his  knife. 

I  think  it  only  friendly  to  warn  you  of  the  danger- 
ously explosive  state  of  Spofforth's  feelings.  There 
is  something  to  be  said  in  explanation,  if  not  in 
justification,  of  his  inveterate  animus  against  you. 
Spofforth  hates,  loathes,  execrates,  detests,  despises, 
abhors,  abom.inates,  extravasates,  eviscerates,  con- 
founds, conspues,  condemns  and  consigns  to  eternal 
bottomless  perdition,  all  people  who  think  for  other 
people  upon  any  subject  before  carefully  thinking  it 
out  for  themselves,  l^hat  is  Spofforth's  idiosyncrasy, 
stated  in  the  fewest  words.  You  see,  my  dear  Wells, 
you  have  touched  Spofforth  on  the  raw. 

I  do  not  wish  to  cause  you  unnecessary  alarm.  I 
may  be  unduly  anxious  about  you.  Spofforth  may 
not  carry  out  his  threats.  You  may  be  sure  he  shall 
not,  if  I  can  restrain  him.  But  I  do  advise  you  to 
be  constantly  on  your  guard.  For  the  present  it  will 
be  better  for  you  to  keep  silence  on  all  social  and 


256  My  Dear  Wells 

political  problems.  This  will  give  him  time  to  cool 
down.  Beyond  this,  I  think  you  will  be  wise  to  take 
some  measures  to  propitiate  Spofforth. 

I  know  that  your  first  impulse  will  be  to  call  him 
"an  out-and-out  liar,"  or  a  "silly  ranter,"  or  an 
"excited  imbecile."  Don't  do  that,  my  dear  Wells. 
I  don't  in  the  least  mind  your  applying  these  terms 
to  myself.  In  fact,  I  like  it,  since  it  gives  me  a 
pleasing  security  that  you  cannot  meet  my  argu- 
ments. But  you  mustn't  take  that  tone  with 
Spofforth.  It  wouldn't  be  safe  in  the  present  state 
of  his  feelings  towards  you.  Spofforth  isn't  a  mild- 
mannered,  easy-tempered  man  like  myself,  disposed 
to  let  you  off  lightly,  and  always  ready  to  give  you  a 
pat  on  the  back,  and  say,  "Brave  lad!"  when  you 
get  an  occasional  glimmering. 

No,  you  must  try  other  tactics  with  Spofforth. 
You  do  see  how  necessary  it  is  for  you  to  appease 
him,  don't  you?  First,  there  is  your  personal  safety 
to  be  considered.  Then  I  suppose  you  intend  to  go 
on  thinking  for  other  people,  and  to  promulgate 
more  theories  as  fast  as  they  come  into  your  head. 
You  don't  want  Spofforth  to  be  always  lying  in  wait 
to  tickle  you  with  what  he  calls  his  Ithuriel  fallacy- 
piercer.  You  want  to  have  a  quiet  undisturbed  time 
to  formulate  a  world  policy  for  the  yellow  races, 
or  to  prophesy  the  ultimate  absorption  of  Buddhism 
by    the    Salvation    Army,    or    any    other    gigantic 


The  Wells  League  257 

apocalyptic  romance  that  happens  to  strike  your 
fancy. 

Now  what  shall  we  do  to  mollify  Spofforth?  You 
won't  of  course  attempt  to  argue  with  him.  If  I 
have  any  influence  with  you,  my  dear  Wells,  let  me 
implore  you  not  to  pit  your  argumentative  powers 
against  Spofforth.  Argument  isn't  your  strong 
point.  You  recognize  that,  don't  you?  But  you  are 
a  dandy-cock  at  theory.  Let  us  put  our  heads 
together  and  fix  up  some  theory  that  will  offer  an 
excuse  for  your  grievous  errors  and  fallacies,  and 
dispose  Spofforth  to  a  more  tolerant  and  lenient 
frame  of  mind  towards  you. 

I  suggest  we  should  tell  Spofforth  that  your  brain 
works  in  that  way;  that  in  thinking  virulently  against 
your  country;  in  stirring  disaffection,  and  sowing  the 
seeds  of  revolution  amongst  those  who  are  unable 
to  think  for  themselves;  in  accusing  all  rich  men  and 
all  powerful  men  of  dishonestly  intercepting  wealth 
and  influence  that  belong  to  others;  in  shaking  the 
foundations  of  social  order;  and  in  spreading 
unworkable  theories  that  tend  to  the  disintegration 
and  dissolution  of  the  British  Empire — in  all  these 
matters  you  are  helplessly  under  the  control  and 
direction  of  certain  particles  in  the  convolutions  of 
the  gray  matter  of  your  cerebrum,  which  particles 
vibrate  in  a  certain  manner  and  cause  you  to  give 
utterance  accordingly. 


258  My  Dear  Wells 

I  know  it  isn't  a  very  good  excuse.  In  fact,  it's 
a  very  bad  excuse.  But  can  you  think  of  a  better 
one?  If  you  offer  that  explanation^  I  don't  see  what 
Spofforth  can  say  in  reply.  He  can't  possibly  prove 
that  your  brain  doesn't  work  in  that  way.  And  if 
your  brain  does  work  in  that  way,  it  is  plainly  useless 
for  him  to  get  angry  with  you,  and  to  work  himself 
into  these  ungovernable  rages  against  you.  With 
your  permission  then,  I  will  offer  that  explanation 
to  Spofforth,  and  will  try  to  induce  him  to  accept  it. 

I  hope  you  will  take  my  mediation  with  Spofforth 
as  a  proof  of  my  own  desire  to  open  an  easy  way 
for  you,  as  time  goes  on,  and  as  your  cerebral  proc- 
esses undergo  some  salutary  changes,  to  become  a 
good  loyal  attached  citizen  of  the  British  Empire. 
In  this  spirit  of  good  will  towards  you,  I  subscribe 

myself, 

Hopefully  yours, 

Henry  Arthur  Jones. 
March  19,  1921. 


LETTER  NINETEEN. 
A  CHALLENGE. 

My  Dear  Wells, — 

I  have  now  examined  with  great  care  and 
minuteness  the  quality  and  texture  of  your  thinking 
upon  the  gravest  matters  that  are  shaking  and  per- 
plexing the  minds  of  men  all  over  the  civilized 
world.  Incidentally  I  have  also  examined  your 
economic,  Collectivist,  and  International  theories 
and  have  inquired  upon  what  foundations  they 
rest  of  solid  facts  and  actual  forces  at  work  in 
the  world  we  are  living  in.  If  I  may  make  a  rough 
generalization,  I  will  say  that  in  dealing  with  all 
these  complicated  questions,  you  do  not  deduce  your 
theories  from  facts;  you  deduce  your  facts  from 
your  theories  and  force  them  to  fit.  If  at  times  I 
have  seemed  to  trifle,  and  play  carelessly  round  all 
these  deadly  serious  questions,  that  is  not  because 
I  have  ceased,  even  for  a  moment,  to  apprehend  their 
sovereign  exigence  and  importance.  While  this  has 
been  always  in  my  mind,  my  attention  has  yet  been 
frequently  diverted  to  the  aspect  of  amusing  and 
crazy  absurdity  which  your  theories  offered  to  my 

OHO 


26o  My  Dear  Wells 

examination.  Let  me  recall  one  instance  out  of  the 
many  that  I  have  pointed  out. 

You  tell  us  in  your  fifth  paper  that  it  was  not 
until  you  visited  Russia  and  saw  the  widely  spread 
destitution  there,  that  you  perceived  that  the  abo- 
lition of  marketing  and  shopping  and  of  private 
property  caused  nine-tenths  of  the  houses  and 
buildings  in  any  town  to  become  useless  heaps,  and 
to  dissolve  away.  What  became  of  the  inhabitants 
did  not  seem  to  trouble  you.  You  had  to  journey  to 
Russia  before  you  could  open  your  mind  to  this 
perception.  It  came  upon  you  as  a  revelation. 
Surely  it  is  what  every  man  possessing  an  ounce  of 
common  sense  can  perceive  at  a  moment's  glance. 
Well,  you  received  this  revelation  in  the  Kremlin. 
How  has  it  affected  your  theories?  Do  you  still 
advocate  the  abolition  of  private  property? 

My  dear  Wells,  it  is  by  reason  of  "thinking"  such 
as  yours,  carried  into  governmental  action  by  your 
co-thinkers  aand  co-theorists,  that  civilization  has 
almost  perished  in  Russia,  and  that  its  hapless  people 
have  endured  their  three  years'  terrible  martyrdom. 
It  may  well  be  that  by  reason  of  "thinking"  such  as 
yours,  carried  into  governmental  action  by  your 
co-thinkers  and  co-theorists,  that  the  British  Empire 
will  be  shaken  till  it  cracks  at  its  centre,  and  that 
our  own  countrymen  may  fall  for  a  season  under  a 
brutal  military  despotism,  kindred  to  that  which 
has  starved  and  pillaged  Russia  and  sacrificed  mil- 


A  Challenge  261 

lions  of  the  lives  of  its  workers.  In  the  measure 
that  your  theories  are  carried  into  operation  will 
they  surely  produce  the  same  effect  in  Britain  that 
they  have  produced  in  Russia. 

I  cannot  think  that  you  have  set  yourself  for  one 
single  hour  to  study  these  questions  with  the  deter- 
mination to  follow  your  theories  to  their  inevitable 
consequences.  You  complacently  advocate  the  abo- 
lition of  private  property  and  the  destruction  of  the 
present  social  order.  You  evidently  desire  the  dis- 
integration and  dissolution  of  the  British  Empire, 
and  its  absorption  in  some  Collectivist  International 
State.  You  stir  your  fellow  citizens  to  work  for 
the  attainment  of  these  ends.  You  claim  to  do  this 
in  the  interests  of  the  working  classes,  that  they  and 
their  children  may  take  possession  of  the  wealth  and 
influence  which  rich  men  have  stolen  from  them. 

Have  you  ever  tried  to  disengage  your  mind  from 
your  theories,  and  for  one  quiet  hour  to  think  apart 
from  them?  Have  you  ever  tried  to  picture  the 
reactions  all  over  the  world  that  would  follow  the 
break-up  of  the  British  Empire?  Have  you  ever 
tried  to  realize  what  would  be  the  consequences  to 
the  British  working  classes  for  whose  benefit  you 
counsel  its  dissolution?  They  would  turn  and  curse 
you.  For  be  sure  there  can  be  no  easy,  gradual, 
peaceful,  dissolution  of  the  British  Empire.  "Not 
without  blood"  will  it  be  accomplished,  as  you  your- 
self discern.     It  would  be  the  British  working  classes 


262  My  Dear-Wells 

who  would  bear  the  brunt  of  that  tremendous  world 
disaster.  Upon  them  and  their  children  would  be 
visited  the  heaviest  sufferings  and  calamities.  Be 
quite  sure  of  that.  Do  you  wish  me  to  prove  it  to 
you? 

I  cannot  believe  that  you  have  ever  sat  down 
with  a  clear  unbiased  mind  to  weigh  and  consider 
all  these  matters  that  flow  so  glibly  from  your  pen.  I 
cannot  believe  that  you  have  resolved,  first  to  tell 
yourself  the  truth  about  them,  and  then  to  tell  that 
truth  to  those  who  accept  you  as  a  social  and  political 
guide.  Surely  if  you  had  taken  the  trouble  to  search 
carefully  into  these  matters,  and  to  weigh  your  judge- 
ments before  you  delivered  them,  you  would  have 
avoided  the  vorst  of  the  flagrant  self-contradictions, 
inconsistencies,  and  fallacies  that  I  have  exposed. 

Throughout  these  letters  I  have  allowed  myself 
the  utmost  freedom  and  plainness  of  speech.  In  this 
I  am  justified  by  the  supreme  importance  of  the 
questions  in  dispute  between  us.  On  all  these  tre- 
mendous questions  it  is  urgent  that  our  nation  should 
come  to  a  decision.  Our  future  security  and  pros- 
perity depend  upon  our  giving  a  right  answer  to 
each  one  of  these  questions. 

Upon  all  these  tremendous  questions,  you  and  I 
are  in  irreconcilable  opposition.  Now  it  matters 
little,  my  dear  Wells,  what  theories  and  opinions  get 
into  your  head,  or  into  mine.  The  world's  course  is 
not  guided  by  your  theories  and  opinions,  or  by  my 


A  Challenge  263 

theories  and  opinions.  The  world's  course  is  guided 
by  great  changeless  laws  and  principles,  that  are 
everywhere  and  always  in  operation,  that  silently 
but  irresistibly  rule  men  with  an  iron  compulsion, 
whether  or  not  they  are  aware  of  it.  At  every 
moment  of  our  lives,  in  every  relationship  of  life,  in 
the  family,  in  the  tribe,  in  the  school,  in  the  work- 
shop, in  the  office,  in  the  city  council,  in  the  senate, 
in  the  state,  in  the  international  comity  of  nations, 
these  changeless  laws  and  principles  incessantly 
repeat  to  every  one  of  us  their  stern  immitigable 
command,  "This  do,  and  thou  shalt  live." 

The  world  is  turned  upside  down  today,  my  dear 
Wells,  because  men  have  disregarded  and  disobeyed 
these  merciless  irrevocable  laws  and  principles,  and 
have  followed  your  new  kind  of  honesty,  and  what 
you  call  "modern  ideas."  It  is  a  very  old  world, 
my  dear  Wells.  Men  have  not  lived  in  it  all  these 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  years  without  discovering 
these  primal  changeless  laws  and  framing  them  into 
codes.  From  of  old  these  laws  have  been  known, 
have  been  more  or  less  obeyed,  have  guided  the 
usages  of  all  civilized  societies,  and  have  kept  the 
world  more  or  less  in  order.  Men  and  nations  may 
dodge  and  disobey  these  changeless  laws  and  princi- 
ples for  a  time,  and  for  a  time  escape  the  conse- 
quences. But  they  take  their  terrible  revenge,  alike 
upon  the  innocent  and  guilty. 

For  instance,  Lenin  has  just  discovered  that  there 


264  My  Dear  Wells 

are  certain  Immutable  economic  laws  which  govern 
the  distribution  of  wealth,  and  the  allotment  of  food 
and  the  necessaries  and  comforts  of  life.  He  is 
reported  to  say  that  agreements  with  bourgeois 
governments  are  indispensable.  He  is  giving  a 
grant  of  concessions  to  capitalists  and  to  farmers, 
''who  must  own  their  own  land."  What  damnable 
heresy  is  this,  that  a  private  person  shall  be  allowed 
to  own  land,  especially  if  he  has  worked  for  It  and 
earned  it!  Allowed  to  own  land!!  Land  of  all 
things !  Then  there  is  reason  to  hope  that  men  will 
be  allowed  to  own  other  desirable  things  which  they 
have  worked  for,  and  have  practised  self-denial  to 
obtain!  But  what  will  be  the  end  of  these  conces- 
sions to  common  sense? 

After  remarking  that  no  one  was  so  mad  as  to 
expect  a  world  revolution,  Lenin  screwed  up  his  eyes 
in  a  comical  manner  and  said,  "I  fear  I  have  become 
respectable !"  Well  may  you  call  him  an  "amazing 
little  man."  With  some  droll  histrionic  talent  tool 
"I  fear  I  have  become  respectable."  A  most  effec- 
tive curtain  line  on  that  act  of  Bolshevism. 

"Comrades!"  we  hear  him  saying,  "we  have  had 
our  three  years'  little  picnic.  Twenty  millions  or  more 
of  you  have  perished  in  dreadful  misery!  Millions 
more  of  you  have  been  shot  down  without  trial  or 
tortured  and  imprisoned  and  hunted  to  exile,  despair 
and  death !  Twenty  millions  of  you  are  starving 
today!      Comrades,  I  now  begin  to  see  the  absurdity 


A  Challenge  265* 

of  our  theories !  We  will  end  this  act  of  our  grand 
economic  international  burlesque,  and  return  to  the 
realities  of  ordinary  bourgeois  existence"  ;  adding  in 
an  aside  to  Trotsky,  "or  pretend  to  return  to  them, 
until  we  have  got  enough  capital  out  of  the  bourgeois 
governments  to  keep  our  red  army  of  four  million 
men  in  the  field." 

It  is  here  necessary  for  me  again  to  remind  you, 
my  dear  Wells,  that  in  one  of  those  rare  glimmerings 
and  perceptions  of  facts  which  you  do  occasionally 
get,  you  stamped  Lenin  as  a  "rotten  little  incessant 
intriguer,  who  ought  to  be  killed  by  some  moral 
sanitary  authority." 

A  grave  responsibility  rests  upon  the  English 
government  for  giving  recognition  to  one  whom,  in 
a  lucid  interval,  you  so  accurately  described.  No 
man,  no  nation,  no  government  ever  palters  and 
compromises  with  manifest  wrong,  without  risking 
the  consequence  of  a  terrible  revenge  from  the 
operation  of  these  changeless  irrevocable  laws. 
For,  unlike  your  theories  and  your  modern  ideas, 
these  changeless  irrevocable  laws  do  work,  and  do 
govern  us,  and  do  in  one  way  or  the  other,  constantly 
affirm  their  authority  over  us. 

Certainly  our  hearts  will  heave  a  deep  sigh  of 
relief  at  the  mere  prospect  that  the  hapless  Russian 
masses  will  be  delivered  from  the  worst  of  tyran- 
nies, the  mad  tyranny  of  false  theories,  the  murder- 
ous despotism  of  false  ideas.    But  what  of  the  huge 


266  My  Dear  Wells 

national  debt  that  Russia  owes  to  hard  set,  impov- 
erished, thrifty  France?  Is  France,  mutilated,  dev- 
astated, depopulated  France,  with  her  ruined  Indus- 
tries— France  that  Is  still  crushed  and  staggering 
under  the  blows  that  she  bore  for  Western  civiliza- 
tion— is  France  to  be  cheated  alike  by  German 
duplicity,  and  by  Russian  frank  dishonesty?  Russia, 
with  her  illimitable  resources,  will  well  be  able,  under 
sane  government  in  the  future,  to  repay  the  debt  she 
owes  to  France.  Is  that  debt  to  be  enforced,  or 
frankly  repudiated  by  Russia  ?  The  clearest,  earliest 
declaration  on  this  crucial  question  Is  demanded  from 
the  English  government.  A  secure  and  prosperous 
France  Is  the  first  assurance  for  a  secure  and  pros- 
perous British  Empire,  and  for  the  peace  of  Western 
Europe.  A  cheated,  bankrupt  France  Is  an  assur- 
ance of  Immeasurable  trouble  and  Insecurity  for 
England,  and  of  perpetual  disorder  and  dread  of 
war.  What  has  the  English  government  to  say 
about  the  repudiation  of  the  Russian  national  debt? 
Meantime,  my  dear  Wells,  you  have  announced 
that  you  will  not  argue  with  me.  Instead  of  arguing 
with  me,  you  call  me  an  "out-and-out  liar,"  a  "silly 
ranter,"  an  "excited  Imbecile."  Your  theories  and 
views  are  widely  held  in  England  today.  We  have 
amongst  us  a  group  of  busy  writers,  who,  like  your- 
self, are  "thinking  for"  large  masses  of  our  fellow 
citizens,  and  who,  like  yourself,  always  "think"  and 
write   against  their   own  country.      Since  you   find 


A  Challenge  267 

yourself  unable  to  argue  with  me  on  these  life  or 
death  questions,  cannot  you  find  some  champion 
who  will  carry  on  the  fight  for  you?  The  main 
questions  upon  which  I  have  joined  issue  with  you 
are  these : 

( 1 )  The  necessity  of  upholding  the  integrity, 
solidarity,  and  indissolubility  of  the  British  Empire 
as  one  of  the  chief  guarantees  against  world  disorder 
and  anarchy. 

(2)  The  impossibility  of  establishing  any  form 
of  Collectivism  without  destroying  all  social  order 
whatsoever. 

(3)  The  impossibility  of  organizing  any  work- 
able scheme  of  Collectivist  finance. 

(4)  The  necessity  of  a  clear  recognition  of  the 
rights  of  private  property,  as  the  only  means  of 
rewarding  industry  and  ability. 

(5)  The  palpable  falsehood  of  affirming  that  all 
rich  and  all  powerful  men  are  dishonestly  "inter- 
cepting the  wealth  and  influence  that  other  men 
have  created  for  mankind." 

(6)  The  deadly  mischief  of  making  such  palpably 
false  statements,  and  thereby  inflaming  class  hatred 
at  a  moment  when  the  safety  of  every  man,  woman 
and  child  in  Great  Britain,  and  especially  of  our 
working  classes,  depends  upon  our  healing  all  our 
divisions,  and  standing  together  in  the  closest  unity 
of  national  aim  and  effort, 

I  repeat  that  these  arc  life  or  death  questions. 


268  My  Dear  Wells 

Upon  each  of  them,  I  am  as  strongly  opposed  to  you 
as  life  to  death,  as  white  to  black,  as  right  to  wrong. 
Upon  each  of  them,  our  nation  is  called  upon  to  make 
a  quick  and  clear  decision.  I  have  no  poor  ambition 
to  gain  a  verbal  victory  over  you,  my  dear  Wells. 
I  am  only  desirous  that  our  nation  should  arrive  at  a 
right  decision  on  all  these  questions.  I  have  been 
very  plain-spoken  and  very  explicit  In  making  my 
statements  and  charges,  and  have  supported  them  by 
a  chain  of  carefully  connected  argument.  Surely 
amongst  all  the  writers  who  hold  your  theories, 
there  is  some  one  of  them  who  can  offer  me  a  rea- 
soned reply,  instead  of  abuse  and  vasty  vagueness? 
He  shall  find  me  very  eager  to  give  up  any  wrong 
opinion  that  I  may  be  holding.  I  will  not  call  him 
a  "liar"  or  an  "excited  imbecile."  I  will  thank  him 
very  courteously  for  putting  me  right.  I  throw 
down  my  glove.  Who  picks  it  up?  You,  sir?  Or 
you?    Or  you? 

Again  let  me  assure  you,  my  dear  Wells,  that  I 
am  not  moved  by  any  feeling  of  personal  animosity 
against  you.  In  your  last  communication,  you  wrote 
of  my  "incurable  grudge,"  my  "everlasting  hooting 
and  lying,"  my  "dreary  hostility,"  and  of  my  heart 
being  "full  of  malice."  My  dominant  feeling  to- 
wards you,  my  dear  Wells,  is  plainly  revealed  by 
the  tone  of  many  of  the  lighter  passages  in  these 
letters.  That  dominant  feeling  which  I  need  not 
more  clearly  Indicate,  Is  largely  mingled  with  amuse- 


A  Challenge  269 

ment.  It  is  therefore  quite  incompatible  with  any 
feeling  of  personal  malice. 

I  do  indeed  beheve  that  you  are  doing  a  great 
amount  of  mischief  by  your  loose  and  confused  think- 
ing and  your  vasty  vagueness.  Before  I  began  this 
controversy,  I  wrote  you,  and  gave  you  my  reasons 
for  starting  it.  Your  theories  aim  at  the  breaking 
up  of  the  British  Empire.  I  hope  it  will  not  seem 
incredible  to  you  that  this  is  a  sufficient  reason  for 
my  attacks  upon  them.  You  prove  yourself  a  bad 
judge  of  character,  my  dear  Wells,  when  you  ascribe 
to  personal  malice  what  is  only  the  performance  of 
my  duty  as  a  good  citizen  of  my  country. 

One  evil  of  all  this  loose  thinking  upon  these 
matters  is  that  we  blind  ourselves  to  the  plain  stern 
fact  that  this  will  never  be  a  world  in  which  every- 
body can  be  made  happy  and  comfortable,  even 
under  the  best  forms  of  government;  even  if  we 
could  all  suddenly  change  our  natures,  and  from  this 
time  constantly  study  to  do  our  duty  to  our  neigh- 
bours. There  would  still  be  collisions  of  interest 
amongst  men,  amongst  the  different  social  classes, 
amongst  the  different  nations  and  races  of  the  earth. 
Competition  and  cooperation  in  endlessly  shifting 
forms,  are  one  of  those  many  balancing  and  com- 
pensating alternations  by  which  Nature  governs  us, 
and  disposes  of  us,  and  forces  us  to  go  the  way  she 
wants  us  to  go.  If  we  once  get  a  firm  hold  of  tliis 
universal   law   of  balancing  alternations,   this  per- 


270  My  Dear  Wells 

petual  reversal  and  play  of  catabollc  and  anabolic 
forces  in  every  social  organism,  we  shall  get  a  better 
apprehension  of  how  little  and  how  much  we  can 
do  to  remedy  social  wrongs  and  abuses.  By  our 
removal  of  one  social  wrong  we  often  cause  a  re- 
action that  sets  up  a  greater  wrong  than  the  one  we 
have  tried  to  remedy. 

A  worse  evil  of  all  this  loose  thinking  upon  these 
matters,  is  that  by  adopting  wrong  remedies,  (such 
as  burning  down  employers'  shops)  we  cease  to 
search  for  true  effective  cures  for  such  social  and 
political  abuses  and  wrongs  as  can  be  cured  or 
palliated. 

In  some  respects  our  present  civilization  is  the 
most  hideous  that  the  world  has  ever  known.  There 
are  many  things  in  it  that  sadly  need  to  be  changed 
and  some  things  that  need  to  be  destroyed.  I  do 
not  seek  to  perpetuate  the  present  social  order.  It 
must  inevitably  submit  to  vast  changes.  Let  those 
changes  be  made  in  obedience  to  the  changeless  laws 
which  underlie  all  social  order.  Whether  a  better 
general  state  of  world  civilization  can  be  gradu- 
ally brought  about  by  our  conscious  efforts, 
will  depend  upon  our  getting  a  true  knowledge  of 
the  laws  of  social  structure,  and  very  much  more 
upon  our  getting  them  obeyed  by  the  masses  of 
mankind.  I  propose  as  soon  as  I  can  find  time  to 
these  fundamental  laws  that  underlie  all  social  order, 
have  a  further  talk  with  you,  my  dear  Wells,  upon 


A  Challenge  271 

and  that  are  always  operative  and  compulsive  upon 
every  community,  whether  or  not  we  are  ignorant 
of  them,  whether  or  not  we  obey  them. 

You  decline  to  argue  about  them  with  me?  Well 
then,  I  shall  again  have  to  carry  on  our  next  con- 
troversy all  alone.  I  daresay  I  shall  be  equal  to  it, 
and  that  I  shall  again  be  able  to  find  arguments  for 
both  of  us. 

Yours  in  the  meantime, 

Henry  Arthur  Jones. 
New  York  City, 
March  30,  1921. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


Af  R  1  6  1952! 


1b5£ 


Form  L9-25m-9,'47{A5618)444 


THE  LIBRARY 


UNIVEr 


IFORNU 


|^f^       Jones  - 

71m  My  dear  Wells, 


mJL 


6l95t 


HX 

246 

J71ra 


AA    000  419  595    4 


